I    HV 


UC-NRLF 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


GIFT  OF 

Lewis   P»  Langfeld 


M 


TRIAL 


OP 


B,  W,  WILLIAMS  AND  OTHEKS, 


EDITOR  AND  PRINTERS 

OF   THE 

DEW  DROP,  TAUNTON,  MASS,, 

FOR   AN 

•> 

ALLEGED   LIBEL 

AGAINST    WILLIAM   WILBAR, 
A  RUMSELLER  OF  TAUNTON, 

CONTAINING    THE    LIBELOUS    ARTICLE    ENTITLED 

"A  DREAM," 

* 

THE  EVIDENCE  IN  THE  CASE, 

THE  ARGUMENT  OF  H.  B.  STANTON,  ESQ. 


AND    THE    CHARGE    OP 


HIS  HONOR,  JUDGE  HUBBARD 





REPORT 


OF    THE    TRIAL  OF 


B,  W,  WILLIAMS  AND  OTHERS, 


EDITOR  AND  PRINTERS 


OF    THE 


DEW  DROP,  A  TEMPERANCE  PAPER  PUBLISHED  AT  TAUNTON,  MASS., 

FOR    AN    ALLEGE*)    LIBEL    UPON 

WILLIAM  WILBAR, 

A    RUMSELLER    OF    TAUNTON, 

BEFORE  THE  SUPREME  JUDICIAL  COURT  AT  NEW  BEDFORD, 
AT  THE  NOVEMBER  TERM,  1845, 

HIS  HONOR,  JUDGE  HUBBARD, 

ON    THE    BENCti. 


TAUNTON,    MASS., 

HACK    &    KING,    PRINTERS,    DEW    DROP    OFFICE 

1846. 


GIFT 


PEEFACE. 


In  compliance  with  the  wishes  of  the  friends  of  temperance,  not 
only  in  Bristol  County,  but  in  Boston  and  different  parts  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, the  editor  of  the  Dew  Drop  has  been  induced  to  publish 
his  trial  for  Libel  in  pamphlet  form.  The  testimony  of  respectable 
witnesses,  the  argument  of  Henry  B.  Stanton,  Esq.,  and  the  charge 
of  his  Honor,  Judge  Hubbard,  will,  in  the  opinion  of  the  pioneers 
of  the  temperance  reform,  be  of  essential  benefit  to  the  cause. 

The  rumsellers  and  their  supporters  throughout  the  State,  looked 
forward  to  this  trial  with  the  most  intense  interest.  They  fondly 
hoped  that  the  result  of  it  would  forever  silence  the  "  temperance 
fanatics,"  and  that  they  might,  for  the  future,  pursue  their  unlawful 
calling,  without  the  least  molestation.  In  this,  however,  they  were 
disappointed.  They  found  no  favor  with  the  Judge  or  Jury,  and  the 
result  of  it,  so  far  from  satisfying  the  dealers  in  alcohol,  has  proved 
to  their  entire  satisfaction,  that  they  can  no  longer  hope  for  redress 
from  Courts  of  Justice  in  the  old  Bay  State,  for  criticisms  upon  their 
man-destroying  traffic.  It  has  also  settled  the  question  that  temper- 
ance editors  may  "  Dream"  about  rumsellers,  even  though  they  may 
be  wide  awake. 

The  report  of  this  trial  is  given  to  the  public  in  the  hope  (hat  it 
may  tend  to  make  the  traffic  in  intoxicating  drinks  disreputable. — 
The  argument  of  Mr.  Stanton,  which  was  an  able  and  eloquent  ef- 
fort, and  a  most  withering  and  scorching  rebuke  to  all  the  venders 
in  poisonous  liquors,  will  be  read  with  deep  interest  by  the  lovers  of 
Temperance.  B.  W.  W. 


M890784 


REPORT 

OF    THE 

TKIAL  OF  B,  W.  WILLIAMS  AND  OTHEHS. 


Supreme  Judicial  Court,  Bristol  County, 
November  Term,  1845. 

HIS    HONOR,    JUDGE    HUBBARD,    PRESIDING. 

WILLIAM  WILBAR,  \ 

vs.  >  Action  for  Libel. 

B.  W.  WILLIAMS,  and  others,  j 

Counsel  for  the  Plaintiff,  T.  G.  COFFIN,  Esq.,  of  New  Bedford, 
and  A.  BASSETT,  Esq.,  of  Taunt  on. 

Counsel  for  tlie  Defendants,  H.  B.  ST  ANTON,  Esq.,  of  Boston,  and 
T.  D.  ELLIOTT,  Esq.,  of  New  Bedford. 


This  was  an  action  for  Libel.  One  of  the  Defendants,  B.  W. 
Williams,  was  the  editor  and  publisher,  and  Hack  &,  Bradbury  were 
the  printers,  of  a  Temperance  Paper,  published  at  Taunton,  called 
the  DEW  DROP. 

In  January,  1845,  an  article  was  published  in  the  paper,  entitled 
"  A  Dream,"  which  was  the  foundation  of  this  action. 

The  plaintiff  commenced  his  action  in  April,  in  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas.  Damages  were  laid  at  $3,000  00.  By  motion  of 
the  defendants,  the  case  was  carried  to  the  Supreme  Judicial  Court. 
The  trial  commenced  on  Thursday,  November  13,  1845,  and  closed 
the  following  Wednesday. 

The  following  is  the  alleged  libellous  article  : — 

A  DREAM. 


"WAS     IT    ALL     A     DREAM?7 


As  we  sat  in  our  room  a  few  days  since,  thinking 
what  more  could  be  done  to  advance  the  cause  of  Tem- 
perance in  this  community,  we  fell  asleep  and  dreamed 
the  following  dream.  We  were  in  Rum  Hollow,  and 
by  sojne  irresistible  impulse  we  were  drawn  into  that 


6 


house  of  human  slaughter,  kept  bv  one  WILBAR. — • 
Such  sights  as  we  there  saw,  may  we  never  behold 
again.  As  we  passed  the  threshold,  the  first  object  that 
attracted  our  attention  was  the  presiding  genius  of  the 
place — the  incarnate  Devil.  On  an  elevated  seat  in 
the  back  part  of  this  indescribable  hell,  he  sat ;  while 
ever  and  anon  there  issued  from  his  mouth,  flames  of 
fire,  which  withered  and  scorched  all  the  deluded 
wretches  who  had  been  enticed  within,  by  the  intrigue 
and  cunning  of  his  faithful  understrappers.  Unobserved 
by  the  devil's  agent,  whom  we  immediately  recognized 
as  Wilbar,  we  concealed  ourself  behind  a  huge  cask 
labelled  Mania  a  potu. 

Having  recovered  somewhat  from  the  shock  on  enter- 
ing this  den  of  the  devil,  and  from  the  effects  of  the 
pestiferous  air  which  filled  the  place,  we  took  a  survey 
of  the  premises.  Around  the  store  were  arranged  Casks, 
Barrels  and  Demijohns,  some  of  which  were  labelled  as 
follows  :  MAN-KILLER  —  MANIAC  BEVERAGE 
—  ORPHAN-MAKER  —  SOUL-DESTROYER  — 
THE  DEVIL'S  SYRUP  — DRUNKARD'S  COUGH 
AND  DELIRIUM  TREMENS,  &c.,  &c.  We  no- 
ticed also  several  signs  nailed  to  the  wall,  a  few  of 
which  bore  the  following  inscriptions  :  MEN  TRAINED 

HERE  FOR  THE  GALLOWS.       LESSONS   GIVEN  IN  SuiCIDE. 

CHILDREN  INSTRUCTED  IN  THE  ROAD  TO  DEATH.  Di- 
rectly over  the  place  where  Wilbar  stood  were  suspend- 
ed a  Skull  and  Cross-Bones.  On  the  shelves  above  the 
casks  and  barrels  wrere  placed  bottles,  and  wTe  saw  a  crea- 
ture which  resembled  the  devil  in  miniature,  occasionally 
thrusting  his  head  from  the  necks  ;  this  we  supposed  to 
be  the  "  Bottle  Imp." 

Near  the  devil  was  a  caldron  of  flaming  liquid,  which 
we  afterwards  discovered  was  filled  from  the  devil's  own 
mouth,  boiled  down,  bottled  and  labelled  LUCIFER'S 
ELIXIR.  We  had  thus  far  surveyed  the  place,  when 
the  door  opened  at  our  side,  and  a  young,  blustering 
man,  W7ith  a  red  face  and  blood-shot  eyes,  stepped  up  to 
a  cask  labelled  THE  DEVIL'S  SYRUP,  and  with  an  oath 
swallowed  the  entire  glass.  We  easily  recognized  this 
man  by  his  swaggering  gait  and  horrible  profanity.  We 
have  often  seen  him  engaged  about  the  store,  serving  at 


:.- 


times  as  an  under  clerk.  Another  immediately  entered 
arid  called  for  a  glass  of  SOUL  DESTROYER.  He  drank 
and  took  his  seat  by  the  stove.  A  moment  after,  the 
door  was  again  opened,  and  a  miserable  wretch  staggered 
in ;  his  hair  was  matted  together,  his  eyes  horribly 
swollen,  his  clothes  torn  and  ragged,  the  very  picture  of 
despair.  With  a  desperate  effort  he  reached  the  coun- 
ter and  called  for  a  glass  of  MANIA  A  POTU.  An  old 
ftian  with  spectacles  approached  towards  the  cask  behind 
which  wre  were  concealed,  and  drew  from  it  a  glass. — 
We  held  our  breath  until  he  left,  for  we  discovered  him 
to  be  the  very  man  who  once  stood  up  in  Court  and  tes- 
tified he  had  never  sold  in  this  store  a  single  drop  of 
MANIA  A  POTU.  He  administered  the  dose  to  his  victim, 
who  immediately  became  a  raving  maniac. 

Customers  now  Hocked  in,  some  cursing  and  swear- 
ing, others  quarreling  and  fighting.  Among  the  number 
was  a  young  man  who  stepped  up  to  the  counter  and 
called  for  a  glass  of  LUCIFER'S  ELIXIR.  At  this  moment 
a  fiendish  chuckle  was  heard,  and  Wilbar  looking  towards 
the  devil,  clapped  his  thumb  upon  his  nose,  and  with  a 
significant  look  which  wras  answered  by  his  majesty, 
proceeded  to  pour  out  the  burning  liquid.  The  young 
man  drank  to  the  very  bottom  of  the  glass,  and  with  a 
horrid  yell  fell  down  dead  upon  the  floor.  His  pockets 
were  immediately  rifled  of  their  contents,  and  lest  life 
should  not  be  entirely  extinct,  another  glass  was  poured 
down  his  throat. 

A  rustling  was  now  heard  upon  one  of  the  shelves, 
and  one  of  the  Bottle  Imps  was  heard  to  say,  "  The 
Dew  Drop  man  ;  "  whereupon  the  dead  body  was  left, 
and  all  hands  rushed  to  the  door,  having  armed  them- 
selves with  rotten  eggs  and  rotten  apples,  doing,  as  we 
afterwards  learned,  but  little  harm. 

The  hellish  laugh  of  the  devil,  the  screeching  of  the 
Bottle  Imps,  the  hissing  of  the  caldron,  and  the  gibber- 
ing of  the  customers  interrupted  us  in  our  dream,  and 
we  awoke.  "  WAS  IT  ALL  A  DREAM  ?  " 


PLAINTIFF'S  TESTIMONY, 

Mr.  Bassett,  for  the  plaintiff,  enquired  of  the  Jury  whether  any  of 
them  had  heard  aught  of  the  Libel,  or  "  were  biased."  One  of  the 
Jurymen  stilted  that  he  had  heard  something  about  it,  but  was  not 
biased ;  whereupon  Mr.  Bassett  proceeded  to  read  the  writ,  or  rather 
the  declaration,  which  was  about  9  feet  long,  setting  forth  that  the 
plaintiff,  Wilbar,  was  a  most  respectable  grocer,  that  he  had  acquired 
an  enviable  reputation  in  town,  that  he  was  of  reputable  character, 
that  he  had  been  most  wickedly,  maliciously  and  grossly  slandered 
by  the  said  Williams  in  the  Dream  aforesaid,  &,c.,  &,c.  (Mr.  Bas- 
sett  finding  some  difficulty  in  pronouncing  certain  words  used  in  the 
Dream,  and  which  were  inserted  in  the  writ,  Mr.  Coffin  told  him  he 
had  better  spell  them.) 

Mr.  Coffin  moved  that  the  specifications  of  defence,  filed  by  the 
defendants,  be  stricken  out  of  the  case.  The  Court  ruled  that  this 
motion  should  have  been  made  before. 

Mr.  Bassett  proceeded  in  a  very  brief  manner  to  open  the  case 
to  the  Jury  : 

"  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  : — We  propose  to  show  that  the  defend- 
ants were  the  proprietors,  editors  and  publishers  of  the  Dew  Drop ; 
that  the  paper  has  a  large  circulation  through  Massachusetts  and  the 
New  England  States ;  that  an  Extra  was  issued  containing  the 
Dream,  and  that  more  or  less  has  been  said  about  the  Dream  from 
the  time  it  was  published  up  to  the  present  date.  I  hold  in  my  hand 
the  Dew  Drop  of  January  29,  1845,  containing  the  Dream."  (Mr. 
Bassett  attempted  to  read  it,  but  being  unable  to  pronounce  the 
phrase  mania  a  potu,  and  other  terms,  Mr.  Coffin  corrected  him.) — 
The  Extra  Dew  Drop  was  also  introduced  to  the  Jury. 

Several  witnesses  were  sworn,  and  the  examination  on  the  part  of 
the  plaintiff  proceeded. 

SIMEON  DEAN  first  took  the  stand.  I  worked  at  Hack  &>  Brad- 
bury's printing  office  on  the  29th  of  January  last.  The  Dew  Drop 
was  published  by  B.  W.  Williams.  Hack  &  Bradbury  were  the 
printers  —  office  over  Cooper's  store.  B.  W.  Williams  was  editor 
and  publisher.  Don't  know  about  the  paper  being  circulated  any 
where.  Mr.  Williams  took  them  out  of  the  office.  I  don't  know 
whether  there  were  any  papers  of  the  number  with  the  Dream  in  it 
sold  out  of  the  office.  Hack  &  Bradbury  didn't  sell  any.  J.  W.  D. 
Hall's  boy  has  taken  papers  out  of  the  office,  but  don't  remember 
that  he  took  any  of  this  number.  The  Extra  Dew  Drop  was  printed 
a  short  time  after  the  29th  of  January.  Mr.  Williams  took  all  those 
extras  awny.  None  sold  by  Hack  &,  Bradbury.  I  have  been  in  the 


employ  of  Hack  &;  King  until  last  night.  Was  in  the  employ  of 
Hack  &  Bradbury  as  long  as  they  were  together.  Don't  recollect 
that  Hack  &,  Bradbury  ever  sold  any  Dew  Drops. 

Cross-examination. — Hack  &,  Bradbury  printed  another  paper 
called  the  Beacon  of  Liberty.  They  print  Books  and  Pamphlets. — 
It  is  a  printing  establishment. 

BENJ.  F.  HASKINS. — I  worked  for  Hack  &,  Bradbury  last  Janua- 
ry. They  were  printers.  The  Dew  Drop  was  printed  at  this  office* 
I  work  now  for  Hack  &  King.  Mr.  Williams  took  them  away  when 
they  were  printed.  He  takes  them  himself  with  the  knowledge  of 
the  printers.  I  never  carried  any  out  myself.  A  part  of  them  are 
printed  the  night  before  the  publication  day.  They  were  published 
once  a  fortnight  last  January  — now  once  a  week.  The  advertise- 
ments are  handed  to  Mr.  Williams,  and  he  hands  them  to  the  printers. 
The  Extra  Dew  Drop  was  printed  at  Hack  &,  Bradbury's.  Mr. 
Williams  took  the  Extras.  He  took  them  all.  Mr.  Williams  gave 
the  order  to  strike  them  off. 

Several  Dew  Drops,  printed  in  February  and  May,  were  here 
shown  to  witness,  who  testified  that  they  were  printed  at  Hack  &, 
Bradbury's  office.  Their  advertisements,  as  printers,  were  found  in 
these  papers. 

JAMES  P.  ELLIS.— I  took  the  Dew  Drop  last  January.  I  presume 
it  Was  left  at  the  door  of  the  office  where  I  stay.  I  don't  know  who 
left  the  number  of  the  29th  January.  I  pay  Mr.  Williams  for  the 
Dew  Drop  every  year.  Mr.  Williams  called  upon  me  to  subscribe 
for  it,  when  it  first  started.  I  don't  remember  whether  I  had  the 
Extra,  It  is  printed  at  the  corner  of  Weir  and  Main  streets.  I 
read  the  Dream.  It  struck  me  at  the  time  that  it  meant  Wilbar.  I 
read  the  article  the  same  morning  it  was  published.  Taking  it  alto- 
gether, I  thought  it  meant  W.  Wilbar,  without  reference  to  any  par- 
ticular point.  I  know  nothing  about  the  old  man  with  spectacles, 
keeping  at  this  shop,  except  by  common  report.  I  have  often  heard 
of  the  old  man  with  spectacles.  I  don't  know  that  the  old  man  with 
spectacles  kept  at  Wilbar's  store  at  that  time.  I  heard  that  he  did 
before  and  since.  I  don't  know  that  this  old  man  has  been  in  Court 
as  a  witness  against  this  store.  I  have  not  heard  either  of  t be  defend- 
ants say  anything  about  this  Dream  meaning  Wilbar. 

Cross-examination. — I  have  lived  in  Taunton  25  years.  I  have 
known  Rum  Hollow  ever  since  I  have  lived  there.  I  have  known 
Wilbar  two  or  three  years.  Simeon  Wilbar  keeps  a  shop,  a  cellar 
in  Rum  Hollow.  William  WTilbar  was  said  to  be  the  largest  dealer 
in  Rurn  Hollow,  and  that  was  the  principal  reason  I  thought  the 
Dream  referred  to  him.  I  have  seen  the  interior  of  W.  Wilbar's 


10 

shop.  It  was  full  of  people,  some  young,  and  some  pretty  old. — 
This  was  generally  in  the  day-time,  I  have  seen  out  in  front,  drunk- 
ards there  more  or  less.  The  correctness  of  the  picture  in  the 
Dream,  and  the  things  I  had  heard,  led  me  to  suppose  that  it  meant 
the  plaintilf.  (Mr.  Elliott  here  asked  the  witness  what  he  understood 
by  "Man  Killer,"  "  Maniac  Beverage,"  &,c.,  which  are  parts  of  the 
Dream?  Coffin  objected.  Mr.  Elliott  argued  that  he  wanted  to 
prove  what  the  witness  understood  by  those  terms,  and  how  the  com- 
munity understood  them.  The  Court  admitted  the  evidence.)  I 
understand  the  terms  to  be  used  in  a  figurative  sense,  not  literally. 
(Mr.  Coffin  here  said  that  the  editor  actually  meant  to  say  that  the 
Devil  was  in  the  store.)  I  should  think  the  first  part  of  the  Dream 
was  a  good  figurative  description  of  a  dram-shop.  "  Around  the 
shop  were  arranged  casks,  barrels,  demijohns,  some  of  which  were 
labelled  as  follows  :  'Soul  Destroyer,'  *  Orphan  Maker,'  c  Drunkard's 
Cough,'  &c."  Does  this  language,  as  you  understand  it,  describe 
the  shop  and  articles  for  sale  1  Ans. — It  does.  "  Near  the  devil 
was  a  caldron  of  flaming  liquid,  which  we  afterwards  discovered  was 
filled  from  the  devil's  own  mouth,  boiled  down,  bottled,  and  labelled 
Lucifer's  Elixir."  Did  you  understand  this  to  be  a  figurarive  ex- 
pression 1  Ans. — I  did.  "  Another  immediately  entered  and  called 
for  a  glass  of  mania  a  potu."  Did  you  understand  this  to  mean  fig- 
uratively ?  Ans. — I  did.  Is  this  language  a  just  representation  of 
those  who  frequent  low  tippling  shops  ?  Ans. — It  is.  "  Young  men 
falling  down  dead  upon  the  floor."  Did  you  understand  this  in  the 
same  way  ?  Ans. — I  did.  I  understood  all  the  Dream  to  be  an  al- 
legorical description  of  all  tippl ing-shops,  and  of  this  shop  in  partic- 
ular, if  it  is  a  tippling-shop.  In  regard  to  rifling  money — if  you 
saw  this  article  in  another  paper,  not  knowing  the  parties,  should 
you  think  the  money  was  actually  stolen  ?  Ans. — I  should  not.  If 
you  should  take  up  this  paper  in  New  Jersey,  not  knowing  the  par- 
ties, what  should  you  think  of  it,  taking  the  whole  piece  together  ? 
Ans. — I  am  not  prepared  to  say  what  I  should  think  of  it. 

BENJ.  F.  HASKINS. — (A  number  of  Dew  Drops,  of  different  dates, 
containing  remarks  of  the  editor  upon  the  Libel  Case,  were  shown 
to  the  witness.)  Question. — By  whom  were  these  papers  printed  1 
Ans. — Hack  &,  King. 

WILLIAM  NEWCOMB. — I  reside  in  Taunton.  Don't  know  how 
far  Rum  Hollow  extends.  There  is  a  place  so  called  in  Taunton. 
I  have  been  in  Wilbar's  shop.  I  have  read  the  Dream.  I  suspected 
it  referred  to  Wm.  Wilbar's  shop  when  I  read  it.  I  thought  it  meant 
his  shop  because  it  described  the  old  man  with  spectacles.  I  have 
seen  an  old  man  with  spectacles  in  Wm.  Wilbar's  shop.  I  thought 


11 

the  Dream  referred  to  Wm.  Wilbar's  shop,  because  there  were  more 
casks  there  than  in  any  other  shop  in  that  quarter.  He  kept  grocer- 
ies, such  as  sugar,  tea,  coffee,  corn,  pork,  rice,  &c. — some  herrings 
also.  (Mr.  Coffin  here  remarked  that  Taunton  was  a  herring  town, 
and  this  article  was  sold  in  every  store ;  whereupon  the  Court  smiled.) 
I  have  no  doubt  in  my  mind  who  was  intended  by  this  Dream. 

Cross-examination. — I  have  been  in  there  two  or  three  times  per 
week.  Wilbar  does  not  keep  that  shop  now.  I  think  he  left  last 
spring.  I  saw  casks  in  his  shop,  and  I  supposed  there  was  liquor  in 
them.  I  have  been  in  Simeon  Wilbar's  store.  (Coffin  objected  to 
the  evidence.  Court  admitted  it.)  Have  net  seen  any  casks  in 
Simeon  Wilbar's  place.  Simeon  Wilbar's  shop  is  under  the  same 
roof  with  William  Wilbar's — a  cellar.  There  is  no  communication 
between  the  two  shops.  I  have  bought  liquor  at  William  Wilbar's 
shop  within  a  year.  My  business  has  carried  me  more  to  William 
Wilbar's  than  to  Simeon  Wilbar's  shop.  I  have  no  doubt  I  bought 
liquor  at  William  Wilbar's  shop  prior  to  Jan.  29.  I  have  drank 
there.  Liquor  was  sold  in  Simeon  Wilbar's  shop — kept  in  decanters 
back  of  the  bar.  It  has  been  .said  that  William  Wilbar  sold  the  most 
liquor.  I  have  seen  a  good  many  casks  in  the  back  part  of  the  shop 
of  William  Wilbar,  and  so  many  that  it  was  difficult  sometimes  to 
get  round  them.  Have  seen  other  people  drinking  there.  Don't 
recollect  of  seeing  the  old  man  with  spectacles  in  Simeon  Wilbar's 
shop  waiting  upon  customers.  Don't  recollect  of  hearing  cursing 
and  swearing  in  William  Wilbar's  shop  —  not  heard  much  noise 
there.  I  don't  know  but  I  might  have  seen  men  worse  for  liquor 
there.  Don't  know  as  I  have  seen  men  down  drunk  there. 

PARDON  LEONARD,  JR. — I  reside  in  Taunton.  Never  read  the 
Dream,  nor  heard  it  read.  I  was  born  in  Taunton.  I  am  a  Con- 
stable. I  have  been  in  William  Wilbar's  shop,  and  also  in  Simeon 
Wilbar's,  but  not  so  frequently  in  the  latter  as  in  the  former.  Wil- 
liam Wilbar's  shop  was  called  a  rum  shop  in  the  Hollow.  I  have 
seen  folks  drink  there.  Good  many  casks  there — all  kinds  of  casks 
and  decanters.  Have  seen  the  room  pretty  well  filled  with  custom- 
ers. No  doubt  about  seeing  a  good  many  drunk  there.  I  have  been 
in  the  back  of  his  shop.  There  is  a  door  from  the  shop  to  the 
barn.  Never  saw  any  gambling  there.  William  Wilbar  keeps 
most  all  kinds  of  provisions. 

LEONARD  CROSSMAN. — I  own  the  building  formerly  occupied  by 
William  Wilbar.  I  read  the  Dream.  The  Dream  referred,  I  think, 
to  William  Wilbar.  I  thought  it  referred  to  him  on  account  of  the 
description  of  the  casks,  &c. 


12 

Cross-examination. — I  don't  remember  of  seeing  labels  on  the 
casks.  I  let  the  barn  to  William  Wilbar.  He  hired  the  whole 
building — paid  from  $300  to  $400  for  it, 

JOHN  REED. — I  heard  the  Dream  read  in  the  house  at  the  time  of 
it.  I  expected  it  meant  William  Wilbar's  store.  Hack  &,  Bradbu- 
ry printed  the  Dew  Drop  before  Hack  &,  King.  I  don't  know  as  I 
bought  the  Dream  of  Hack  &/  Bradbury.  I  don't  know  when  the 
Dream  was  bought.  It  was  read  in  Mr.  Lane's  tavern.  There  was 
a  bar  kept  there.  (A  long  Lane  that  bar-room,  said  the  Court.) — 
William  Wilbar  kept  shop  in  what  is  called  Rum  Hollow.  Is  the 
Cohannet  Bank  in  Rum  Hollow  ?  No :  just  this  side.  (Coffin  here 
said  that  the  Cohannet  Bank  was  exceedingly  hollow.)  Can't  state 
the  date  when  I  bought  the  Dew  Drop  of  Hack  &  Bradbury —  along 
through  the  winter  some  time.  They  sold  them  for  two  cents  apiece, 
J  didn't  generally  buy  them  of  Hack  &,  Bradbury  when  I  could  see 
one  in  the  house. 

NOBLE  BRIGGS. — I  have  resided  in  Taunton  for  over  three  years 
:past.  I  saw  the  Dream,  and  bought  it  of  the  boy,  Simeon  Dean,  in 
Hack  &/  Bradbury's  office.  Hack  &,  Bradbury  were  not  in  the 
office.  I  tried  to  get  it  of  some  one  else :  I  would  have  given  a 
number  of  dollars  rather  than  not  have  it.  Carried  it  home  to  my 
wife. 

ROSWELL  WniTTEMOREjOr  the  old  man  with  spectacles . — I  bought 
the  Dream  in  the  office,  but  canjt  say  of  whom.  I  bought  it  of  a 
sandy-haired  man.  I  called  for  a  paper  that  had  got  the  Dream  in, 
I  gave  the  paper  to  William  Wilbar.  I  believe  it  is  in  being  now. 
Cross-examination. — Never  went  there  but  once  for  the  Dream. 
Mr.  Coffin  here  introduced  a  Dew  Drop  of  February  26th,  con- 
taining an  article  in  relation  to  the  prosecution  of  Wilbar.  He 
read  extracts  from  it,  which  he  supposed  would  tend  to  aggravate 
the  case.  As  soon  as  he  had  finished  it,  Mr.  Elliott  read  the  whole 
article,  which,  when  taken  together,  tended  to  show  the  motive  in 
writing  the  Dream  and  all  other  articles  of  a  similar  character.— r 
The  whole  article  was  read  by  permission  of  the  Court. 

All  the  witnesses  for  the  plaintiff  having  been  examined,  Mr.  El- 
liott proceeded  to  open  the  case  for  the  defence,  offering  some  re- 
marks which  were  pertinent  and  to  the  point. 

"  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  : — I  do  not  propose  to  detain  you  with  a 
long  speech.  This  is  a  new  case  in  this  County  to  me,  and  I  have 
no  doubt  it  is  to  you.  We  have  never  heard  of  a  man  coming  to  a 
Court  of  Justice  and  asking  protection  for  himself  as  a  violator  of 
law.  Thus  far  it  is  a  novel  one.  Wilbar,  a  rumseller  of  the  very 
worst  description,  asking  a  Court  of  Justice  to  protect  him  in  his 


13 

business.  One  of  the  defendants  is  editor  and  publisher  of  the  Dew 
Drop ;  the  other  two  are  printers.  Supposing  this  Deam  to  be  a 
libel,  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  Hack  &  Bradbury  circulated 
one  of  them.  It  must  be  shown  that  they  sold  them  at  that  time,  or 
at  any  subsequent  time.  There  is  no  evidence  that  any  of  the  pa- 
pers were  sold  with  their  consent.  Mr.  Williams  took  the  papers. — 
He  is  the  publisher,  and  admits  it.  He  publishes  it  for  good  and 
justifiable  ends,  and  so  long  as  it  is  published  legaljy,  it  is  a  worthy 
publication.  Papers  of  this  description  have  done  great  good.  The 
Dew  Drop  is  promoting  a  great  and  good  cause.  Mr.  Williams  in 
conducting  it  has  helped  to  carry  on  this  cause.  He  has  assisted  to 
clothe  the  naked,  to  feed  the  hungry,  to  restore  the  parent,  and  to 
raise  the  fallen,  and  he  deserves  your  thanks  and  mine,  and  will,  I 
have  no  doubt,  receive  them. 

If  Wilbar's  business  had  been  legal,  it  would  not  have  done  to  at- 
tack it  rudely.  If  the  plaintiff  had  a  right  to  sell,  the  defendants 
had  no  right  to  bring  reproach  upon  his  business.  Wilbar  is  a  rum- 
seller.  He  does  not  come  here  with  clean  hands.  He  does  not 
maintain  ..that  place  in  the  community  which  entitles  him  to  redress. 
He  stands  upon  very  different  ground  from  what  he  would,  if  he 
was  in  a  legal  business.  We  expect  to  prove  that  William  Wilbar 
kept  a  hell  in  Rum  Hollow.  We  shall  describe  the  character  of  this 
store,  by  men  whom  you  will  believe.  William  Wilbar  is  the  great- 
est rumseller  of  this  hole." 

Mr.  Elliott  here  quoted  various  authorities  to  show  that  an  action 
cannot  be  maintained  for  anything  written  against  a  party  engaged 
in  an  illegal  transaction. 

"  We  don't  mean  to  say  that  the  Dream  was  literally  true.  We 
mean  to  contend  that  there  were  casks  there  which  contained  that 
which  produced  delirium  tremens,  &c.,  &/c.  We  don't  mean  to  say 
.that  he  killed  men,  but  that  he  sold  that  which  killed.  To  prove 
'chis,  is  somewhat  of  a  matter  of  fact.  We  shall  introduce  evidence 
to  prove  this  beyond  a  doubt.  This  is  a  figurative  description  of  a 
dram-shop,  and  we  shall  satisfy  you  on  this  point.  '  Men  trained 
here  for  the  gallows.'  We  shall  show  that  Mr.  Wilbar's  business 
,£ends  to  train  up  men  for  the  gallows.  *  Children  instructed  in  the 
road  to  death.'  We  shall  show  that  the  rum  trade  tends  to  this,  and 
that  .children  are,  in  Wilbar's  shop,  by  trading  with  him,  learning 
the  road  to  death.  We  shall  show  you  that  the  plaintiff  has  sustained 
•no  legitimate  damage.  We  shall  show  you  that  Mr.  Williams  has 
been  conducting  a  temperance  paper — that  he  has  no  ill  will  against 
William  or  Simeon  Wilbar.  He  wanted  to  do  all  he  could  to  "  rout 
Rum  Hollow/  and  we  hope  and  expect  you  will  sustain  him  in  it. — 


14 

The  statements  in  the  Dream  are  fairly  figurative,  or  representative 
of  a  shop  where  liquor  is  sold. 


DEFENDANTS'  TESTIMONY, 

SAMUEL  L,  CROCKER. — Mr.  Bassett  enquired  of  the  witness, 
vious  to  the  examination,  if  he  was  interested  in  this  suit.  Mr, 
Crocker  replied  that  he  felt  no  more  interest  in  it  than  all  good  citi- 
zens should  feel  in  a  case  of  this  kind.  "  Have  you  offered  to  pay 
any  money  towards  defraying  the  expenses  of  the  defendants  ?"  He 
said  he  felt  very  sure  that  he  had  made  no  such  agreement,  but 
jAvould  have  done  so,  if  he  had  been  asked. 

Mr.  Elliott  proceeded  to  examine  the  witness.  I  am  a  resident  of 
Taunton —  have  lived  there  for  the  last  twenty  years.  My  house  is 
within  eight  of  Rum  Hollow.  Wilbar  occupied  a  shop  in  Rum 
Hollow  in  January,  1845.  On  the  side  of  the  door,  outside,  was  a 
sign,  with  the  words,  Rum,  Brandy,  Gin,  &c.,  painted  upon  it. — 
(Coffin  objected  to  this  testimony.  Court  ruled  it  admissible.)  I 
saw  every  day  of  my  life  (Coffin  objected — Court  ruled  it  admissir 
ble)  men  whom  I  knew  to  be  drinkers  going  in  and  coming  out.  I 
often  saw  it  in  the  morning,  early,  lighted  up,  and  drunkards  hurry- 
ing to  it.  I  have  seen  drunkards  passing  in  and  out  at  all  hours  of 
the  day  —  have  seen  loads  of  rum  going  into  the  store.  There  is  a 
screen  just  inside  of  the  door. 

When  I  saw  the  Dream,  it  brought  to  my  mind  a  circum- 
stance connected  with  this  shop.  I  went  into  Wilbar's  store  with  an 
officer  in  order  to  try  to  lessen  the  amount  of  intemperance  during 
this  week,  which  was  Court  week.  I  was  at  first  insulted,  but  was 
soon,  however,  well  treated.  Some  of  the  customers  thought  this 
was  the  correct  course,  viz. :  to  put  a  stop  to  the  use  of  liquor,  and 
to  prosecute  the  drunkards.  Saw  persons  drinking,  and  others  who 
were  about  to  drink.  Saw  a  woman  with  a  tin  pail  in  her  hand,  and 
saw  some  one  in  the  store  draw  something  and  put  into  the  pail. — 
Saw  casks,  barrels  and  decanters  there.  Persons  were  in  there  who 
appeared  to  be  intoxicated.  Have  seen  drunkards  pitched  or 
pushed  out  of  the  store.  This  is  a  very  common  occurrence. — 
Great  deal  of  noise  there,  generally  in  the  evening,  and  often  during 
the  day,  when  there  was  an  unusual  collection  of  people  in  town. — . 
I  remained  in  the  store  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes.  I  saw  hogsheads 
of  rum,  barrels,  and  standing  casks  in  the  store.  I  did  not  see  any 
groceries  sold.  I  went  behind  the  screen. 


15 

Cross-examination. — I  saw  the  sign  on  the  outside  years  ago.  Ac- 
cording to  my  belief  the  sign  was  there.  (Coffin  here  said  in  an 
insulting  manner,  "I  don't  care  what  you  believe.")  I  am  sure 
that  the  time  I  was  in  Wilbar's  store  was  in  September  before  the 
Dream  was  published.  The  pitching  out  of  the  shop  is  of  common 
occurrence.  I  could  not  specify  any  particular  day. 

Mr.  Elliott  here  stated  that  Mr.  Crocker  was  anxious  to  leave 
town,  unless  Mr.  Coffin  wished  to  detain  him  longer.  Mr.  Coffin 
replied  in  a  most  impudent  arid  ungentlemanly  manner,  that  Mr. 
Crocker  was  the  very  last  man  he  wished  to  have  anything  to  do  with. 
We  should  think  so  —  the  bad  generally  shun  the  good. 

JAMES  W.  EARL. — I  knew  where  William  Wilbar  kept  before 
February,  1845.     I  live  within  100  feet  of  his  store.     Have  seen  a 
good  deal  of  drunkenness  and  heard  a  good  deal  of  noise  about  the 
premises.     I  have  often  looked  into  the  store.     Have  seen  a  great 
many  there,  in   all  the  different    stages  of   intemperance.     Heard 
cursing  and  swearing  at  night.     Seen  persons  coming  out  in  a  fight- 
ing condition,  and  have  a  knock  down  in  front  of  the  store.     Those 
persons  who  frequent  this  store  are  about  as  mean  a  class  as  can  be 
conveniently  found   any  where.     I  have  seen  persons  coming  out 
drunk  ;  an  every  day  occurrence.     I  have  rendered  assistance  to  men 
who  were  down  drunk  about  the  door  of  Wilbar's  shop.      Have 
helped  to  get  them  a  shelter  and  have  taken  care  of  them.     Have 
seen  casks  going  in  and  out ,  also  bottles,  jugs,  rundlets,  kettles  and 
coffee-pots.     Have  seen  persons  going  in  and  out  at  the  side  door  on 
Sunday.     Have  also  seen  them  intoxicated  about  the  building.     I 
have  been  out  near  the  door  when  they  were  about  shutting  up  for 
the  night.     Seen  some  of  the  customers  drunk,  arid  some  so  as  to  go. 
Have  seen  them  fall  out.     Have  been  waked  up  at  night  by  noise. — 
Went  out  and  saw  fighting  round  the  door  of  Wilbar's  shop.     Shop 
sometimes  open  and  sometimes  shut  at  such  times.     I  know  persons 
who  make  it  a  point  to  hang  about  there.     Do  you  know  John  Ken- 
ny 1     (Coffin  objected,  Court  ruled   the  question  admissible.)     Yes. 
He  had  been  intemperate.      Have  seen  John  Kenny  coming  out 
drunk  from  Wilbar's  store  a  few  days  before  he  died.     He  died  July, 
1844.     He  was  taken  the  night  I  saw  him  with  delirium  tremens. — 
He  was  wild,  raving  mad,  showed  fight,  wanted  to  hurt  every  body. 
He  said  a  caravan  of  lions,  tigers,  &,c.,  was  after  him.     I  have  read 
the  Dream. 

Cross-examination. — I  live  in  the  brick  building.  Bank  building 
between  Rum  Hollow  and  my  house.  I  occupy  the  whole  house. 
Have  not  been  into  Wilbar's  shop  for  two  or  three  years.  (Mr.  Cof- 
fin, with  the  assistance  of  Mr,  Earl,  made  a  drawing  oT  Rum  Hoi- 


16 

low.)  There  is  a  side-door  to  the  building — south-west  side.  Have 
seen  persons  go  in  at  the  front  door  on  Sunday.  Seen  Field  go  in 
there.  There  is  an  Oyster  Cellar  under  the  store.  Some  time  in 
the  Spring  of  1844  Wilbar  commenced  occupying  this  store.  Have 
seen  children  of  0  years  of  age  in  this  store.  I  was  6  or  8  feet  from 
the  door.  Two  Gregory  boys  were  in  there,  one  about  9,  and  orie 
about  11  years  of  age.  Kenny  came  from  Wilbar's  door  when  I 
saw  him.  I  know  the  printers  of  the  Dew  Drop— Hack  &,  Bradbu- 
ry. Mr.  Williams  has  let  me  have  the  Dew  Drop  from  the  office. 

ASA  TISDALE. — I  live  in  Taunton.  Was  acquainted  with  Wil- 
bar's shop.  I  have  purchased  liquor  in  his  store.  I  have  paid  for 
the  liquor.  In  one  instance  I  paid  for  three  loco-foco  matches,  and 
had  the  liquor  thrown  in.  With  two  exceptions,  I  bought  liquor  al- 
together at  Wilbar's  shop.  I  have  seen  other  persons  there,  some 
drinking  and  some  smoking.  Have  seen  them  buy  articles  there. — 
Have  seen  persons  buy  a  pint,  two  quarts,  and  a  gallon  of  rum  there. 
Have  seen  from  one  to  fifteen  or  twenty  in  the  store  at  a  time,  of  all 
ages  from  17  and  younger  up  to  60.  Liquor  was  kept  in  bottles, 
decanters,  barrels  and  hogsheads.  There  were  marks  on  the  barrels, 
viz.:  "W.  W."  "Gin,"  "  Brandy."  Wilbar  was  there  tending.— 
There  was  a  sign  on  the  door  outside,  "Rum,  Gin,  Brandy,  Wines, 
Cordials."  I  have  seen  twenty  hogsheads  at  one  time  in  the  store. 
Have  seen  persons  there  at  all  times — some  in  for  it.  The  princi- 
pal business  of  Wilbar  was  selling  liquor.  Have  seen  children  go 
in  there  with  tin  pails.  The  last  time  I  bought  any  thing  there  was 
in  February.  The  last  time  I  bought  any  liquor  there  was  one  year 
ago  last  October.  I  know  Pardon  Barton.  I  drank  a  great  many 
times  with  him  at  Wilbar's.  He  is  dead.  (Coffin  said  this  might 
be  allegorical.)  He  was  an  intemperate  man.  He  appeared  as  ra- 
tional as  anybody  when  not  intoxicated.  I  never  saw  any  one  fight- 
ing in  Wilbar's. 

Cross-examination. — I  bought  liquor  there  about  once  a  week.  I 
bought  no  more  liquor  because  I  left  off  drinking.  Didn't  want  any 
more. 

DOCT.  CHARLES  JEWETT. — I  am  a  physician  and  surgeon  by  pro- 
fession. My  attention  has  been  drawn  particularly  to  the  effects  of 
spirituous  liquors  upon  the  human  system.  I  have  read  the  Dream. 
I  took  it  to  be  an  allegory  ;  not  a  literal  description  of  facts  ;  but  fig- 
urative. Question — What,  in  your  judgment,  as  a  physician,  is  the 
effect  of  spirituous  liquors  upon  human  life  ?  (Coffin  objected — no 
bearing  upon  the  case.  The  effect  of  spirituous  liquors  is  no  justifi- 
cation for  the  defendants.  Court  decided  the  question  to  be  compe- 
tent.) I  believe,  as  a  physician,  the  direct  tendency  of  spirituous 


17 

liquors  is  to  destroy  life.  It  affects  the  coats  of  the  stomach,  and 
through  the  medium  of  the  nervous  system,  deranges  all  the  func- 
tions of  the  body.  Alcohol  passes  directly  into  the  circulation,  and, 
consequently,  is  distributed  through  the  whole  constitution.  It  is 
classed  by  the  most  eminent  medical  writers  as  a  poison.  It  is,  with- 
out doubt,  one  of  the  most  accurate  poisons.  There  are  but  one 
or  two  others  that  will  destroy  life  quicker.  There  is  no  power  in 
the  human  system  to  change  the  nature  of  alcohol.  It  remains  the 
same  wherever  it  is  found  in  the  system.  It  is  absorbed  but  not  di- 
gested. The  breath  of  an  habitual  drinker  may  be  collected  on  the 
inside  of  a  glass  vessel,  by  a  chemical  process,  and  from  it  alcohol 
may  be  distilled.  An  effort  was  made  some  15  or  20  years  since  to 
ascertain  the  number  of  drunkards  who  died  annually  in  the  United 
States.  New  Haven  was  taken  as  a  fair  sample.  It  was  estimated 
that  there  were  30,000  drunkards  in  the  United  States  who  died  in 
consequence  of  using  intoxicating  drinks.  I  believe  this  to  have 
been  below  the  mark.  The  use  of  alcohol  is  the  cause  of  delirium 
tremens.  There  is  no  other  cause.  The  subjects  of  delirium  tre- 
mens  are  apparently  mad,  raving,  under  great  fears  ;  they  suppose 
themselves  to  be  pursued  by  demons  and  evil  spirits,  invisible  to  oth- 
ers, but  visible  to  them.  (Coffin  here  asked  if  he  did  not  think  that 
the  devil  was  really  after  them.  The  Doctor  replied,  that  it  might 
perhaps  be  so.)  They  commit  suicide  under  the  influence  of  this 
terrible  disease.  I  have  seen  diseases  terminate  fatally  where  medi- 
cine would  have  apparently  cured  the  patients  if  they  had  not  been 
hard  drinkers.  Drunkards  have  a  cough  peculiar  to  them.  I  could 
recognize  this  cough  without  seeing  the  patient.  The  case  related 
by  Mr.  Earl  was  without  doubt  a  case  of  delirium  tremens.  It  is 
the  opinion  of  medical  writers  that  the  constitution  of  the  child  be- 
comes tainted  by  the  excesses  of  the  parents.  I  have  seen  a  great 
deal  of  figurative  writing  in  connection  with  the  temperance  cause. 
I  considered  this  Dream  as  allegorical.  Intemperance  is  one  of  the 
most  fruitful  sources  of  insanity,  and  the  hardest  to  cure.  (Dr. 
Woodward  having  been  quoted  by  Dr.  Jewett,  Coffin  said  that  he, 
Dr.  Woodward,  was  raving  mad  upon  the  subject  of  insanity.) 

Cross-examination. — "  Were  the  English  nation  hard  drinkers  ?  " 
They  were.  "  Were  they  long  lived  ?"  I  think  not.  The  Germans 
were  not  as  hard  drinkers  as  the  English,  Scotch  or  Irish.  The 
Scotch  are  the  hardest  drinkers.  They  consume  immense  quantities 
of  spirits.  Delirium  tremens  is  always  produced  by  alcohol.  "Are 
these  evil  spirits'?"  Can't  tell  positively.  Delirium  tremens  is  an 
illusion  which  the  subject  cannot  divest  himself  of  after  he  has  re- 
covered. Dr.  Sewall  is  good  authority. 
3 


18 

REV.  J.  CURTIS,  Chaplain  of  Charlestoivn  State  Prison. — I  have 
been  a  Clergyman  since  October,  1825.  Was  Chaplain  at  the  Au- 
burn Prison  two  and  a  half  years,  and  at  Charlestown  Prison  17 
years.  I  have  directed  my  attention  to  intemperance  as  a  source  of 
crime.  This  is  a  duty  I  owe  to  the  State.  I  have  probably  exam- 
ined thousands  at  Auburn  and  Charlestown  prisons  with  regard  to 
their  habits  of  intemperance.  I  tried  to  get  the  prisoners  to  be  frank 
and  tell  their  habits  of  life.  (Coffin  objected.  Court  decided  that  the 
witness  must  confine  himself  to  his  personal  knowledge  and  obser- 
vations.) More  than  three-quarters  of  all  the -prisoners  in  Charles- 
town  of  whom  I  have  had  personal  knowledge,  were  intemperate  men. 
There  is  nothing  so  destructive  to  the  morals  of  men,  as  intemper- 
ance. All  other  causes  combined,  do  not  produce  so  much  immor- 
ality as  the  use  of  intoxicating  drinks.  It  destroys  the  kindlier  feel- 
ings, and  hardens  the  heart.  I  have  read  the  Dream.  A  sister  of  a 
convict  in  prison  sent  him  some  papers  and  books,  and  among  them 
was  this  Dream.  Wishing  to  examine  the  papers  so  see  if  they  were 
proper  for  the  prisoner,  I  saw  this  Dream.  I  read  it.  I  supposed  it 
to  be  an  allegory,  and  an  exceedingly  apt  one.  I  think  the  use  of 
intoxicating  drinks  injurious  to  the  soul. 

Cross-examination. — Mr.  Coffin  asked,  what  is  the  soul  ?  Ans. — 
The  intellect,  the  will  and  the  affections.  "  Did  Noah  get  drunk  ?" 
Yes.  "  What  is  your  opinion  of  Noah's  happiness?"  I  think  he  is 
in  Heaven.  "  His  soul  was  not  injured  then,"  said  Mr.  Coffin.  Mr. 
Curtis  replied,  that  the  soul  might  recover  from  the  injury  received 
from  the  use  of  liquor,  the  same  as  the  body  may  recover  from  it& 
effects.  (i  What  induced  you  to  think  the  Dream  an  allegory?" — 
Ans. — From  the  general  character  of  the  piece,  and  my  knowledge 
of  the  rum  business.  "  Is  the  Book  of  Job  an  allegory  ?"  (Court 
here  stated  that  the  witness  need  not  answer  that  question,  unless  he 
was  willing  to.  Witness  declined  answering.)  However  humilia- 
ting it  may  be  to  me  now,  said  the  witness,  I  was,  when  I  first  left 
College,  a  rumseller.  I  thought  men  who  traded  at  my  store  were 
temperate,  but  I  will  relate  two  instances  to  the  Jury  to  prove  the 
contrary.  One  man,  a  lawyer,  who  traded  with  me,  acquired  habits 
of  intemperance  by  the  use  of  liquor  at  my  counter,  and  died  a 
drunkard.  Another  man,  who  was  a  member  of  Congress,  became 
confirmed  in  his  habits  of  intemperance  while  trading  with  me,  and 
died  a  drunkard.  I  feel  humbled  before  God  as  I  think  of  these 
facts.  If  the  whole  property  of  Massachusetts  were  given  to  me,  I 
would  not  be  a  rumseller.  I  have  no  property  which  I  acquired 
while  in  this  business.  Before  I  entered  the  ministry,  my  feelings 
and  views  were  changed. 


19 

BENJ.  F.  HASKINS. — Mr.  Coffin  asked  the  witness  what  color  Mr. 
Bradbury's  hair  was?  Witness. — There  he  is  —  you  can  ask  him, 
"  What  color  is  Mr.  Hack's  hair  ?"  Inclined  to  be  sandy. 

MRS.  MIRANDA  J.  BARTON. — My  husband's  name  was  Pardon  B. 
Barton.  He  died  the  28th  of  October  last.  He  died  in  the  In- 
sane Hospital  at  Worcester.  I  knew  William  Wilbar's  place.  I 
have  seen  my  husband  there  frequently.  "Was  he  or  not  intemper- 
ate ?"  (Coffin  objected.  Court  ruled  the  question  to  be  competent.) 
He  was ;  so  much  so  that  he  took  to  it  all  the  time.  I  have  seen 
him  there  half  a  dozen  tiuies  a  day.  I  have  seen  him  in  there  when 
he  was  the  worse  for  liquor,  and  sometimes  when  he  was  sober.  He 
went  to  the  Insane  Hospital  the  middle  of  last  May.  He  behaved 
very  bad  before  he  went.  At  one  time  he  caught  the  axe  and  drove 
us  all  out  of  the  house  and  threatened  to  kill  us.  He  jumped  out  of 
bed.  He  was  a  moulder  in  the  foundry.  He  said  the  devil  was  af- 
ter him,  and  he  had  got  to  kill  us.  I  was  not  with  him  when  he 
died.  He  was  carried  from  the  work-house  in  Somerset  to  the  Hos- 
pital. Frequenting  the  rum  shop  made  him  a  pauper.  He  was  35 
years  old.  Had  four  children.  He  was,  after  he  stopped  drinking, 
very  much  against  these  rumsellers.  He  would  curse  all  the  rumsel* 
lers  to  the  lowest  notch. 

Cross-examination. — I  lived  down  by  the  Baptist  Meeting  House, 
few  steps  from  Wilbar's  shop.  Most  always  saw  him  standing  in 
the  store  door.  1  never  went  into  the  store.  He  worked  at  the 
Weir  Bridge.  He  was  in  Somerset  a  little  over  a  month.  He  was 
confined  to  the  house  about  three  months,  He  had  a  sister  in  Som- 
erset who  was  deranged.  My  husband  was  confined  for  insanity 
three  years  ago.  He  had  two  sisters  who  were  insane.  They  were 
not  intemperate.  Mr.  Barton  did  not  take  any  ardent  spirits  in  my 
house  while  he  was  sick.  Was  confined  to  the  house  a  month  or 
six  weeks  before  he  was  carried  to  Somerset.  I  attended  him  con- 
stantly. When  he  was  first  taken,  the  disorder  lay  in  his  feet ;  it  was 
a  sort  of  inflammation.  Dr,  Gordon  attended  him. 

GEORGE  E.  SHATTUCK. — (Mr.  Bassett  asked  the  witness  if  he  had 
any  interest  in  the  case.  Ans. — None,  except  such  as  all  good  tem- 
perance men  ought  to  have,  and  such  as  I  suppose  you  have.  "  Have 
you  agreed  to  pay  any  money  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  this 
suit  V  Ans. — No.)  I  reside  in  Taunton.  I  knew  Mr.  Wilbar's 
place  of  business.  I  have  stopped  repeatedly  before  the  door.  Have 
seen  a  great  many  drunk  in  and  around  the  shop  and  door.  Have 
heard  cursing  and  swearing  there.  These  persons  were  generally 
very  low,  miserable  persons,  very  intemperate.  I  have  seen  Mr. 
Wiibar  there.  I  have  seen  sometimes  twenty  or  thirty  in  tb^e  at  a 


20 

time.  Court  days,  the  Hollow  is  generally  full.  My  business  led 
me  to  pass  by  there  often.  Some  persons  near  there  bound  shoes 
for  me.  I  have  passed  by  sometimes  two  or  three  times  a  day. — 
These  things  I  saw  a  great  many  times.  I  have  been  by  there  all 
times  of  day,  and  almost  all  times  of  night.  Sometimes  at  1 1 
o'clock  at  night  and  sometimes  before  daylight  in  the  morning. — 
Shop  was  sometimes  open  in  the  night.  Have  frequently  seen  a 
great  many  hogsheads  and  barrels  going  in  there.  They  smelt  like 
rum. 

Cross-examination. — I  am  in  the  shoe  business  in  Taunton.  My 
store  is  east  of  Wilbar's.  Couldn't  see  his  shop  from  my  store.  I 
lived  on  the  Green  at  that  time.  Did  not  go  through  Rum  Hollow 
to  go  to  my  house.  Was  obliged  to  go  through  the  Hollow  often. — 
Have  been  in  the  Hollow  on  High  Court  Days.  Went  there  to 
see  the  fun.  I  saw  the  people  intoxicated  on  these  days  in 
the  Hollow.  It  was  not  fun  to  me-,  it  might  have  been  to  some  peo- 
ple. Have  seen  a  great  many  coming  out  of  Wilbar's  shop.  More 
rum  sold  at  this  shop  than  at  any  other  in  the  Hollow.  Have  seen 
men  coming  out  drunk.  Have  seen  persons  coming  out  drunk  at 
all  times.  I  never  went  into  the  shop.  Went  as  far  as  the  step  of 
the  door.  There  is  a  screen  just  inside  of  the  door.  The  screen  is 
a  little  one  side,  so  that  I  could  look  in.  Have  seen  the  store  open 
after  nine  o'clock  a  great  many  times.  Have  heard  cursing  and 
swearing  there.  I  hear  swearing  generally  when  I  pass  by. 

JAMES  WOODWARD. — I  am  Deputy  Sheriff  in  Taunton.  I  knew 
William  Wilbar's  place  of  business.  It  is  a  place  where  there  are 
a  great  many  in.  Lower  class  and  loafers  generally  go  there.  Have 
seen  persons  in  thereunder  the  influence  of  liquor.  They  go  in  and 
drink.  Sometimes  there  is  considerable  noise  in  there.  I  went  in- 
to Wilbar's  store  once  with  Samuel  L.  Crocker.  It  was  Court  week. 
There  were  several  in  there  at  the  counter.  They  had  something 
turned  out  ready  to  drink.  They  turned  round.  Saw  casks  and 
hogsheads  of  all  sizes  in  there.  Saw  persons  drawing  something 
from  them.  Strong  smell  of  liquor  in  the  store.  This  is  the  largest 
establishment  in  the  place.  Have  seen  them  unloading  a  great  many 
.casks  there.  Have  seen  people  bringing  out  kegs  from  this  store. 

-Cross-examination. — I  am  often  called  down  to  this  store  on  busi- 
ness, so  often  that  I  could  not  tell  how  many  times  I  have  been  there. 

GEORGE  H.  BABBITT. — I  reside  in  Taunton.  I  was  Constable  for 
Taunton  at  the  time  Wilbar  kept  store.  I  was  acquainted  with  Wil- 
bar  in  his  place  of  business.  I  was  in  there  the  latter  part  of  No- 
vember, one  year  ago  this  month.  I  had  two  warrants  against  Mr. 
Wilbar,  and  went  to  serve  ihem.  There  were  a  number  in  there  ; 


21 

some  drinking  and  some  standing  round.  Half  a  dozen  or  more  in 
there.  There  was  a  screen  just  inside  of  the  North  door.  I  could 
see  in  the  door  at  the  side  of  the  screen.  The  screen  was  to  take 
off  the  prospect  from  the  bar.  I  have  passed  there  a  number  of 
times  every  week.  I  have  seen  people  going  in  and  coming  out  in 
all  conditions,  some  drunk  and  some  sober.  I  didn't  know  any  dif- 
ference in  the  store  between  the  months  of  November  and  February. 
Have  known  the  store  since  the  foundation  was  laid.  Have  frequent- 
ly seen  them  loading  and  unloading  goods,  barrels,  &,c.,  at  his  store. 
I  think  they  kept  groceries  there. 

The  Counsel  for  the  defendants  here  stated  that  they  had  no  more 
evidence,  and  closed  the  case  for  the  defence  ;  whereupon  the  Coun- 
sel for  the  plaintiff  stated  that  they  should  introduce  some  rebutting 
testimony. 


EEBUTTING  TESTIMONY, 

HORATIO  W.  FIELD. — I  have  been  in  the  store  where  Wilbar  kept 
for  the  last  ten  years.  The  plaintiff  entered  into  possession  of  the 
store  in  March,  1844.  He  occupied  the  first  floor.  Simeon  Wilbar 
occupied  the  cellar  and  upper  story.  William  Wilbar  boarded  with 
Horatio  Field.  From  the  first  of  December  up  to  the  time  William 
Wilbar  left  the  store  in  April,  there  was  no  rum  sold  there.  "Did 
the  plaintiff  give  any  instructions  as  to  the  sale  of  rum  ?"  (Mr.  El- 
liott objected.  Court  ruled  the  question  inadmissable.)  There  is  a 
.door  in  the  West  side  which  leads  to  Simeon  Wilbar's  entry  to  go 
.up  stairs.  No  communication  between  Simeon  and  William  Wil- 
bar's store.  In  cold  weather,  the  front  door  of  William  Wilbar's 
store  is  generally  closed.  William  Wilbar  would  go  in  the  morning, 
(Sunday,)  sweep  out  the  shop,  lock  it  up,  and  go  back.  The  usual 
time  of  shutting  up  the  shop  in  winter  time  was  ten  o'clock,  but 
oftener  nine  and  half  past.  I  have  never  seen  any  fighting,  or  heard 
eursing  and  swearing  in  this  store  since  April,  1844.  Wilbar  kept 
groceries  and  provisions  to  sell.  1  know  Asa  Tisdale.  Between 
April  1844  and  April  1845,  I  have  known  Tisdale  to  buy  all  kinds 
of  groceries  which  a  family  would  need,  such  as  butter,  cheese,  pork, 
flour,  codfish.  Mr.  Wilbar  and  I  have  delivered  them  to  him.  I 
should  think  fifty  dollars  worth  of  groceries  were  delivered  to  him 
while  Wilbar  kept  there. 

Cross-examination. — I  shall  be  twenty  years  old  the  23d  of  Janu- 
ary next.  I  commenced  to  keep  in  this  store  when  I  was  12  or  13 
years  of  age.  I  have  been  clerk  thejre.eyer  since.  I  am  a  relation 


22 

of  Wilbar's.  lie  is  my  uncle.  There  is  a  door  that  leads  from 
Wilbar's  store  to  Simeon  Wilbar's  barn.  William  Wilbar  was  com- 
plained of,  the  second  week  in  December.  I  can't  say  but  what 
there  was  a  large  stock  of  liquors  on  hand  from  the  first  of  Decem- 
ber up  to  the  first  of  April.  I  can't  tell  certainly  whether  there  was 
or  not.  There  might  have  been  a  good  stock  on  hand  and  there 
might  not  have  been  ;  I  think  very  likely  there  was.  It  was  sold  of 
course.  I  perhaps  have  sold  it ;  don't  recollect  that  Wilbar  sold  any. 
I  put  the  money  that  I  took  for  this  liquor  into  Wilbar's  safe.  I  ex- 
pect Mr.  Field  sold  part  of  this  liquor.  I  did  all  the  selling.  It  is 
a  part  of  my  business  to  sweep  out  the  store.  Wilbar  swept  out 
Sundays.  I  swept  out  more  than  once  a  day.  I  used  to  sweep  out 
every  morning  except  Sunday  and  Monday.  I  was  in  there  so  con- 
stantly that  the  door  could  not  have  been  open  without  my  knowing 
itj  except  once  or  twice,  when  I  was  out  of  town.  There  was  a 
window  in  the  door.  I  don't  know  what  Wilbar  did  Sundays. — 
Don't  know  who  kept  the  books.  The  books  kept  themselves  for 
ought  I  know.  Wilbar's  shop  was  a  remarkably  quiet  place.  I  pre- 
sume there  has  been  liquor  sold  in  tin  pails.  It  may  have  been  that 
I  gave  Tisdale  three  loco-foco  matches  and  liquor,  but  don't  remem- 
ber. I  don't  recollect  having  sold  crackers  and  liquor. 

ELIAS  A.  MORSE. — I  am  a  Deputy  Sheriff.  I  knew  Pardon  Bar- 
ton for  a  dozen  years.  I  went  home  two  years  ago  last  April  and 
found  him  in  jail.  I  had  to  confine  him  in  a  room.  I  had  him  there 
fifteen  days.  He  got  much  better  before  he  went  out,  but  was  not 
quite  recovered.  On  the  16th  of  May  I  arrested  him.  He  was 
sent  to  the  House  of  Correction  as  a  man  not  furiously  mad.  Have 
known  but  very  little  about  him  since.  I  have  been  into  Wilbar's 
store,  but  not  to  stop  any.  Passed  it  frequently,  but  not  so  often  as 
some  others.  The  North  door  is  generally  closed  in  cold  weather. 

Cross-examination. — I  have  been  into  Wilbar's  store,  and  have  had 
to  open  the  door  to  get  in.  I  was  in  a  few  times  wh&n  Wilbar  occu- 
pied it.  Don't  know  as  I  ever  saw  any  disturbance  there  when 
Wilbar  occupied  it.  I  have  frequently  had  warrants  to  serve  on  peo- 
ple in  and  about  there.  Went  there  to  find  them.  Barton  has  had 
the  reputation  of  being  a  very  intemperate  man.  The  door  of  Wil- 
bar's store  was  partly  glass.  Don't  know  whether  I  could  see 
through  or  not. 

JAMES  SPROAT. — I  pass  by  Wilbar's  store  a  number  of  times  a 
day  as  I  go  to  my  house.  The  door  of  the  shop  is  like  other  doors 
— generally  closed  in  cold  weather. 

Here  ended  the  examination  for  both  parties. 


The  following  is  the  substance  of  Mr.  Stanton's  address  to  the 
Court  and  Jury,  in  closing  the  case  for  the  defendants.  As  the  ad- 
dress occupied  more  than  five  hours  in  its  delivery,  the  reader  need 
hardly  be  told,  that  this  is  little  more  than  an  abstract  of  it.  So  far 
as  it  goes,  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  tolerably  correct  report,  for  it  has 
been  revised  by  Mr.  Stanton  from  his  own  notes  and  at  the  trial.  It 
was  a  sound,  able  and  thrilling  speech,  and  was  a  most  withering 
and  scorching  rebuke  to  the  plaintiff.  He  repeatedly  drew  tears  from 
many  persons  in  the  Court  House  as  he  depicted  the  terrible  effects 
of  the  rum  traffic.  He  often  turned  to  the  plaintiff,  Wilbar,  as  he 
animadverted  upon  his  man-killing  business,  and  poured  a  torrent  of 
terrible  invective  upon  his  head ;  but  Wilbar  remained  unmoved, 
and  apparently  almost  lifeless. 


MR,  STANTON'S  ARGUMENT  FOR  THE  DEFENDANTS. 


May  it  please  your  Honor — 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury  : 

As  was  remarked  to  you  by  my  learned  associate  in  his  opening 
address  for  the  defendants,  the  cause  you  are  impannelled  to  try,  is 
of  a  novel  character.  Probably  the  precise  questions  which  it  pre- 
sents for  your  decision,  have  never  before  been  submitted  to  a  Jury 
of  this  Commonwealth.  Nor  is  this' merely  a  novel  case.  It  exhib- 
its features  more  embarrassing  than  this.  The  main  questions  here 
to  be  settled,  are  intimately  connected  with  one  of  the  leading  moral 
enterprizes  of  our  age — an  enterprize  which  enlists  the  warmest  feel- 
ings of  large  masses  of  men,  and  concerning  which  our  fellow  citi- 
zens entertain  opinions  as  varied  and  contradictory  as  ever  found  a 
lodgement  in  the  human  mind.  It  would  be  too  much  to  presume 
that  you,  gentlemen,  have  not  adopted  some  of  these  opinions,  and 
participated  to  some  extent  in  this  feeling.  I  pray  you  to  be  on  your 
guard,  and  let  no  sentiments  of  favor  cr  aversion,  towards  either  of 
the  parties  now  at  your  bar,  obtrude  into  this  temple  of  Justice  arid 
influence  your  decisions.  Let  this  cause  be  decided  on  its  true  legal 
merits.  I  am  especially  solicitous  that  the  temperance  reform  may 
be  no  further  involved  in  this  trial,  than  is  necessarily  connected 


24 

with  the  proper  interpretation  and  construction  of  the  alleged  libel 
set  forth  in  the  plaintiff's  writ,  and  the  nature  of  that  defence  which 
we  set.  up  for  the  alleged  publication  of  that  libel. 

What,  then,  are  the  questions  which  it  is  your  duty  to  decide  1 — 
They  are  not,  I  apprehend,  whether  the  temperance  reform  is  wise 
in  itself,  or  judiciously  conducted — not  whether  total  abstinence  from 
intoxicating  liquors  is  right  or  expedient — not  whether  men  should 
sign  the  temperance  pledge  and  organize  temperance  societies — not 
whether  moral  suasion  alone,  or  combined  with  the  judicious  en- 
forcement of  wise  laws,  is  best  adapted  to  secure  the  great  end  which 
all  benevolent  men  desire — not  whether  this  Dream  is  written  in  good 
taste  and  temper,  and  is,  upon  the  whole,  a  timely  and  apt  publica- 
tion— not  whether  the  Dew  Drop  is  a  valuable  auxiliary  to  the  cause 
of  sobriety  and  sound  morals,  and  the  labors  of  its  editor  a  blessing 
to  the  community  in  which  he  dwells.  No,  gentlemen,  these  ques- 
tions are  not  now  submitted  for  your  decision  ;  and  though  I  enter- 
tain long  considered  and  firmly  settled  opinions  in  regard  to  each  of 
them,  I  am  not  so  far  forgetful  of  my  duty  as  to  obtrude  them  upon 
your  consideration. 

The  real  questions  for  your  determination  are  : 

First.  Did  the  defendants  publish  the  Dream,  set  forth  in  the 
plaintiff's  declaration  ? 

Second.  If  so,  did  they  publish  it  "  of  and  concerning "  the 
plaintiff? 

Third.     If  so,  is  it  a  Libel  ? 

Fourth.  If  so,  has  this  plaintiff  any  right  to  seek  redress,  for  such 
publication,  in  a  civil  suit,  in  a  Court  of  Justice  ? 

Fifth.  If  so,  have  the  defendants,  during  this  trial,  justified  this 
publication  ?  Have  they  proved  it  to  be  true,  according  to  its  fair 
interpretation  ? 

Sixth.  If  they  have  failed  in  this  last  particular,  then  what  com- 
pensation in  damages,  shall  they  render  to  the  plaintiff  on  account 
of  this  publication  ? 

I  will  examine  these  questions  in  their  order ;  remarking  in  the 
outset,  that  the  burden  of  making  out  his  case  rests  upon  the  plain- 
tiff. He  is  to  convince  you  of  our  guilt  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt 
It  is  not  our  duty  to  prove  ourselves  innocent. 

1st.  Did  each  of  the  defendants  publish  this  Dream?  The  law 
defines  publishing  thus  : — "  The  wilful  and  intentional  delivery  of  a 
libel,  by  way  of  sale  or  otherwise,  is  a  sufficient  publication."— 
[Wood's  List.,  431.]  Waiving  all  argument  in  regard  to  Williams, 
I  submit  to  you  that  there  is  no  proof  of  a  publication  by  Hack  &/ 
Bradbury.  They  were  merely  job  printers,  having  no  pecuniary  in- 


terest  in  the  Dew  Drop,  never  selling  it,  but  simply  printing  it  in  the 
way  of  their  trade,  after  which  the  whole  edition  was  regularly  taken 
from  their  office  by  the  editor.  I  ask  you,  then,  to  acquit  Hack  & 
Bradbury,  whatever  disposal  you  shall  see  fit  to  make  of  the  remain- 
ing defendant. 

2d.  Was  this  Dream  written  and  published  of  and  concerning 
the  plaintiff? 

On  this  point,  you  are  to  hold  the  plaintiff  to  strict  proof. 

If  the  publication  applies  only  to  a  class  of  persons,  then  the 
plaintiff  cannot  maintain  his  action,  even  though  he  be  one  of  that 
class.  He  must  convince  you  that  he  is  the  person  specially  alluded 
to.  To  this  point,  I  cite  White  v.  Delevan,  17  Wendell's  Reports, 
49. 

Now,  1  contend  that  this  Dream  is  a  vivid  and  faithful  picture  of 
any  and  every  dram  shop  in  the  State.  No  one  of  Satan's  emissa- 
ries, who  does  his  master's  bidding  by  ministering  to  the  baser  appe- 
tites of  our  nature,  has  the  right  to  say,  "  I  am  the  original  of  this 
portraiture."  Why,  then,  does  William  Wilbar  claim  a  monopoly 
in  this  fancy  sketch  ?  Is  his  tippling-shop  pre-eminently  "the  house 
of  human  slaughter?"  To  this,  it  is  replied,  that  the  Dream  speaks 
of  "one  Wilbar."  But,  there  are  two  Wilbars  who  keep  dram-shops 
in  "  Rum  Hollow,"  in  Taunton.  And  if  it  be  doubtful  to  whicfi 
the  Dream  applies,  then  this  action  must  fail.  Why,  then,  does  the 
plaintiff  say  of*  himself,  "  Behold  the  man  !  "  Is  the  picture  so  life- 
like, that  there  can  be  no  mistake  as  to  the  original  ?  Is  it  a  true 
likeness  ? 

Gentlemen,  I  am  fully  sensible  of  the  load  under  which  the  de- 
fendants' case  staggers  at  this  precise  point !  The  plaintiff's  lead- 
ing witness  has  testified,  that,  on  reading  the  Dream,  he  thought  it 
referred  to  William  Wilbar,  because  it  was  such  a  perfect  description 
of  his  grog-shop — so  striking  in  its  general  outlines — so  apt  in  its 
minute  particulars !  And  methinks  I  hear  the  plaintiff  now  saying, 
"  What,  not  mean  me  when  you  penned  this  Dream  !  Why,  never 
did  sunbeams  more  faithfully  impress  the  living  lineaments  of  the 
human  countenance  on  the  daguerreotype  plate,  than  this  Dream 
portrays  my  house  of  human  slaughter  in  Rum  Hollow.  Not  mean 
me  ?  Impossible  !  "  Really,  I  fear  we  shall  have  to  abandon  this 
ground  of  our  defence.  For,  all  the  witnesses  represent  the  plain- 
tiff's establishment  as  a  real  hell-hole,  a  very  Devil  of  a  place;  and 
so  does  the  Dream.  Gentlemen,  we  must  yield  this  point.  William 
Wilbar  is  the  Recruiting  Sergeant  for  perdition  in  Taunton — he  ia 
the  Crown  Prince  of  Rum  Hollow— -and  I  despair  of  convincing  you 


26 

that  this  Dream  is  not  a  faithful  sketch  of  his  administration  in 
realm. 

3d.     Is  this  publication  libellous? 

To  this  I  reply :  undoubtedly  it  is.  It  possesses  every  element  of 
a  libel — it  meets  every  definition  of  a  libel  which  the  books  furnish. 
It  represents  somebody  as  engaged  in  a  most  scandalous,  infamous 
and  diabolical  avocation,  and  for  the  sordid  purpose  of  pecuniary 
gain.  If  the  plaintiff  be  the  person  intended,  and  the  publication 
be  false,  then  there  is  no  amount  of  damages  too  great  to  be  wrung 
from  these  defendants.  There  is  not  one  of  you,  gentlemen,  that 
would  have  such  a  paper  published  of  him  for  all  the  wealth  of  Po- 
tosi.  But,  if,  OR  the  other  hand,  the  publication  be  true — if  it  be  a 
faithful  delineation  of  the  plaintiff's  vocation,  then  is  there  no  depth 
of  infamy  too  low  for  you  to  consign  him  to.  Let  your  verdict  place 
a  whip  in  every  honest  hand,  to  lash  him  naked  through  the  world. 

4th.  But  suppose  you  shall  find,  that  all  the  defendants  published 
this  Dream — that  they  wrote  and  published  it  of  and  concerning  the 
plaintiff — and  that  it  is  clearly  libellous — an  important  question  then 
arises,  viz. :  Does  the  plaintiff  sustain  such  relations  to  the  laws  of 
this  Commonwealth  in  regard  to  the  subject  matter  of  this  Dream, 
as  entitle  him  to  come  to  those  laws  and  ask  for  redress  on  accoont 
of  this  publication  ? 

In  discussing  this  branch  of  the  case,  I  shall  address  myself  main- 
ly to  the  bench — for,  the  questions  involved  in  it  are  chiefly  legal 
questions.  It  will  be  for  his  Honor  to  instruct  you  what  the  Jaw  is 
on  this  point,  and  it  will  be  your  duty  to  apply  the  rules  thus  given 
you,  to  a  few  simple  facts,  about  which,  with  perhaps  one  or  two  ex- 
ceptions, there  will  be  no  dispute  between  me  and  the  learned  coun- 
sel for  the  plaintiff. 

May  it  please  your  Honor,  I  deny  the  plaintiff's  right  to  maintain 
this  action,  because : 

First ;  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  publication  of  this  Dream,  he 
was  and  had  long  previous  thereto  been  engaged  in  the  traffic  in 
spirituous  liquors,  without  being  duly  licensed  therefor,  according  to 
the  47th  chapter  of  the  Revised  Statutes;  and  therefore,  in  violation 
of  law. 

Second  ;  during  the  same  period,  he  kept  a  tippling-house  and 
dram-shop,  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  this  Commonwealth. 

Third  ;  the  publication  was  made  of  him  solely  in  his  vocation  as 
such  a  trafncer,  such  a  keeper,  such  a  violator  of  the  laws. 

Fourth ;  and  from  these  facts  (which  are  for  the  jury  to  determ- 
ine, and  which  will  hardly  be  disputed)  the  inference  is  drawn,  both 
by  principle  and  authority,  that  this  plaintiff,  being  thus  the  violator 


'21 

of  the  law,  cannot  come  to  that  same  law  for  aid  in  obtaining  darn- 
ages  ifor  what  is  published  of  him  in  regard  to  his  agency  in  a  busi- 
ness >in  which  he  thus  transgresses  the  law — no  matter  how  libellous 
the  publication  be,  nor  from  what  motives  put  forth. 

I  will  first  glance  at  those  general  principles  on  which  this  rule  of 
iaw  is  founded. 

As  between  the  Deity  and  His  subjects,  human  government  is  a 
divine  institution.  But,  as  between  man  and  man,  the  ruler  and  the 
ruled,  human  government  is,  for  all  the  purposes  of  this  argument, 
a  contract.  Like  other  contracts,  it  has  its  consideration — its  con- 
ditions precedent  and  subsequent — its  things  to  be  done  and  not  to 
be  done,  by  both  the  contracting  parties.  For  instance,  the  govern- 
ment confers  benefits  and  imposes  burdens,  on  its  subjects.  The 
bearing  of  the  burdens  by  the  subject,  is  the  condition  precedent  on 
which  the  government  confers  the  benefits  upon  him.  The  govern - 
•raent  extends  its  protection  to  the  citizen,  and  exacts  obedience  to 
its  requirements  from  him.  The  one  is  a  consideration  for  the  oth- 
^r.  The  yielding  of  the  obedience,  is  the  condition  precedent  on 
which  the  protection  is  extended.  The  government  wards  off  ag- 
gression upon  the  rights  of  the  citizen,  and  imposes  restraints  upon 
his  conduct  towards  itself  and  his  fellow  citizens.  The  submitting 
to  the  restraint,  is  the  condition  precedent  on  which  the  government 
binds  itself  to  ward  off  the  aggression.  All  righteous  government 
among  men,  is  based  on  this  reciprocal  discharge  of  duties.  Justly 
does  human  government,  echoing  the  Divine,  say  to  its  subjects, 
"  this  do,  and  thou  shalt  live."  The  refusal  to  discharge  these  re* 
ciprocal  duties,  brings  retribution  in  its  train.  Does  the  government 
fail  to  confer  benefits,  to  extend  protection,  to  repel  aggression,  upon 
its  subjects  1  Laws  violated  with  impunity,  or  open  insurrection 
against  its  authority,  or  successful  revolution,  are  the  consequences, 
sooner  or  later,  as  the  history  of  Nations,  written  in  blood,  proves. 
The  injustice  of  taxation  without  representation — the  imposing  of 
burdens  without  conferring  corresponding  benefits,  was  the  cause  and 
the  justification  of  our  own  glorious  revolution.  On  the  other  hand, 
does  the  citizen  refuse  to  bear  the  burdens,  to  yield  the  obedience, 
to  submit  to  the  restraints,  which  the  goverment  imposes,  then 
fines,  imprisonment,  death  itself,  are  the  consequences. 

Let  me  apply  these  principles  to  the  case  now  on  trial.  And,  in 
so  doing,  I  am  far  from  saying,  that  in  the  application  of  these  prin- 
ciples to  all  conceivable  cases,  there  will  be  no  need  for  modifica- 
tions, for  limitations,  for  exceptions,  and  especially  for  explanations. 
I  apply  them  only  as  general  principles  to  this  particular  case. 
The  plaintiff  was  living  in  the  hourly  violation  of  one  of  the  con- 


23 

servative  laws  of  this  Commonwealth.  In  so  doing,  he  was  preying 
upon  the  vitals  of  society,  sapping  the  foundations  of  morality,  un- 
dermining the  social  edifice.  If  all  his  fellow-citizens  should  do  as 
he  was  doing,  we  are  a  tribe  of  anarchists,  a  horde  of  barbarians,  a 
nation  of  bandits.  An  editor  libels  him  in  this  his  vocation:  holds 
it  and  him  in  respect  to  it,  up  to  public  detestation.  For  once  in  his 
life,  this  contemner  of  the  laws,  this  enemy  of  social  order,  enters 
the  sanctuary  of  the  law,  not  to  repair  the  breaches  he  has  made  in 
its  walls,  not  to  offer  himself  a  sacrifice  on  its  altar  for  his  crimes, 
not  to  do  homage  to  the  Deity  which  impartial  justice  has  enthroned 
there;  but  to  invoke  the  aid  of  the  law  in  his  behalf  in  regard  to  the 
very  matter  in  which  he  has  trampled  upon  the  law  and  set  it  at  de. 
fiance  !  What,  I  pray  your  Honor,  has  this  law  to  give  to  the  man 
who  invokes  its  aid  under  such  circumstances  ?  It  owes  him  noth- 
ing but  punishment  for  his  offences.  If  he  has  been  libelled,  it  is 
his  own  rebellious  hand  which  has  plucked  down  scorn  and  infamy 
on  his  own  head.  He  is  eating  the  fruit  of  his  own  doings.  Let 
•him  be  filled  with  his  own  devices.  He  has  sown  to  the  wind.  Let 
him  not  shrink  from  reaping  the  whirlwind. 

William  Wilbar,  in  respect  to  the  subject  matter  of  the  alleged  li- 
bel, refuses  to  bear  the  burdens  which  the  law  imposes.  Why  should 
he  enjoy  its  benefits  ?  He  scoffs  at  its  requirement  of  obedience. — 
Why  should  he  be  sheltered  under  its  protecting  wing  ?  He  breaks 
loose  from  all  restraint  upon  his  conduct  in  this  regard— burls  ruin 
and  death  round  the  land — defies  the  penalty  for  his  crimes.  Why 
should  the  law,  which  he  thus  despises  and  contemns,  ward  off  ag- 
gressions upon  him  ?  Does  he  dare  to  come  to  a  government  of 
law,  and  ask  it  to  aid  him  in  obtaining  damages  for  a  libel  published 
of  him  in  respect  to  his  agency  in  the  sale  of  spirituous  liquors  ?— 
Why,  the  law,  in  this  regard,  is  his  worst  enemy.  It  has  long  been 
waiting  to  get  him  within  its  reach,  that  it  might  scathe  him  with  its 
retributions.  How  dare  he  pollute  its  sanctuary  with  his  presence  ? 
Does  he  flee  here  for  protection  1  His  asylum  shall  be  his  grave.  As 
plaintiff  in  this  action,  he  is  an  OUTLAW.  And  yet,  he  comes  here, 
trampling  at  every  step  upon  the  provisions  of  the  47th  chapter  of 
our  Revised  Statutes,  and  has  the  brazen  audacity  to  ask  your  Hon- 
or and  this  Jury  to  put  money  in  his  purse,  because  a  law-abiding 
citizen  has,  in  characters  of  fire,  blazoned  abroad  his  law-despising, 
man-destroying,  heaven-daring  vocation.  Let  the  Bench  frown  upon 
him.  Let  the  jury-box  flash  its  indignation  around  him.  Let  him 
be  placed  outside  this  temple  of  Justice  which  he  defiles,  and  there, 
clad  in  sackcloth  and  ashes,  do  penance  for  his  legal  transgressions 
and  his  moral  crimes, 


29 

Of  course,  your  Honor  does  not  understand  me  as  insisting,  that 
Wilbar  should  have  no  protection  from  the  law — that  he  should  be 
subjected  to  assaults  and  robberies  with  impunity.  He  is  a  member 
of  society,  and  however  unworthy  he  may  be,  society  owes  it  to  it- 
self that  it  protect  him  in  these  respects.  But,  I  speak  of  him  as 
the  plaintiff  in  a  civil  action  for  damages'  for  a  libel  on  him  in  re- 
gard to  his  agency  in  an  unlawful  pursuit.  Surely,  there  can  be  no 
principle  of  law  more  sound  or  salutary,  than  that  a  party  who  pur- 
sues an  illegal  vocation  shall  not  recover  damages  for  a  libel  upon 
him  in  that  vocation.  The  law  will  not  permit  him  to  take  advan- 
tage of  his  own  wrong,  nor  will  it  aid  him  in  making  money  by  his 
own  transgressions.  For  him  and  his  libeller,  so  long  as  the  quarrel 
is  confined  to  them,  the  law  has  nothing  to  give,  and  from  them  it 
has  nothing  to  take.  It  lets  them  alone,  and  will  aid  neither  one  of 
two  such  wrong  doers.  Undoubtedly  a  different  rule  obtains  in 
criminal  prosecutions  for  libel.  There  the  government  has  its  rights, 
and  the  mere  illegality  of  the  party's  vocation,  will  not,  of  itself, 
constitute  a  defence  fora  libel  upon  him  in  that  vocation  :  though 
perhaps,  this  fact  might  mitigate  the  punishment,  in  case  of  convic- 
tion. Again  :  The  rule  for  which  1  contend  is  also  deducible  from 
all  the  authorities. 

There  are  many  legal  maxims  and  propositions  of  general  appli- 
cation, which  have  their  origin  in  those  foundation  principles  of  im- 
partial justice,  from  which  I  deduce  this  rule.  I  mention  a  few  of 
the  most  familiar,  such  as  :  "  No  man  shall  take  advantage  of  his 
.own  wrong."  4<  He  who  would  have  equity  must  do  equity."  "Ex 
turpi  contractu  actio  non  oritur."  "  The  law  permits  no  man  to 
stipulate  for  iniquity."  So,  the  courts  will  not  enforce  contracts 
when  founded  on  a  consideration  contra  bonos  mores.  Nor  will  they 
aid  the  party,  who  has  paid  such  a  consideration,  to  recover  it  back, 
even  though  the  other  party  refuse  to  fulfil  the  contract.  Nor  will 
they  aid  either  one  of  two  gamblers,  or  sustain  a  party  who  sues  to 
recover  a  wager.  In  the  language  of  Lord  Mansfield,  Courts  of 
Justice  will  not  so  far  forget  their  dignity  as  to  stoop  to  aid  either  one 
of  such  parties.  So,  the  Courts  will  not,  in  action  for  assault,  sus- 
tain the  plaintiff  who  was  the  aggressor.  In  all  such  cases,  they 
dismiss  the  party  with  the  consoling  maxim,  damnum  absque  injuria. 

But,  we  are  not  compelled  to  grope  among  the  analogies  of  the 
law  in  search  of  authorities  to  support  this  rule.  It  is  laid  down 
explicitly  in  the  books. 

In  2  Starkie  on  Slander,  87,  (Wendell's  edition,)  it  is  said,  the 
plaintiff  cannot  recover  if  the  vocation  in  which  he  is  libelled  be  an 
illegal  one.  In  3  Stephens'  Nisi  Prius,  2222,  the  rule  is  laid  down 


30 

thus : — An  action  cannot  be  maintained  for  anything  written  against 
a  party  concerning  his  conduct  in  an  illegal  transaction.  A  leading 
case  in  support  of  this  principle  is  Hunt  v.  Bell,  1  Binghanvs  Re- 
ports, 1.  The  question  was  elaborately  argued,  and  the  Court  unan- 
imously declared  that  a  person  who  pursues  an  illegal  vocation  has 
no  remedy  by  action  for  a  libel  regarding  his  conduct  in  such  voca- 
tion. Another  leading  case,  (very  similar  to  that  now  on  trial,) 
where  this  rule  is  broadly  laid  down,  is  Manning  v.  Clement,  7  Bing- 
ham's  R.,  362.  In  Tibbart  v.  Tipper,  1  Campbell's  Reports,  351, 
it  is  said  by  Garrow,  that  in  an  action  for  a  libel  upon  an  author, 
Lord  Kenyon  admitted  evidence  of  the  nature  of  the  plaintiff's 
works  :  and  it  appearing  that  they  were  themselves  of  a  libellous 
and  scandalous  description,  his  Lordship  threw  his  parchment  at  his 
head,  and  dismissed  him  from  the  Court  with  infamy.  The  follow- 
ing cases  and  authorities  illustrate  and  enforce  the  same  principle : 
De  Wutz  v.  Hendricks,  2  Bingham's  R.,  314 — Yrisarri  r.  Clement, 
2  C.  &  P.  223— Southy  v.  Sherwood— Walcot  v.  Walker,  7  Vesey 
Jr.,  1  and  2  Merivale's  R.,  435,  and  other  cases  cited  in  6  Peters- 
dorff's  Abridgement,  557 — 1  Starkie  on  Slander, 230,  note  6,  (Wen- 
dell's edition) — Bush  v.  Brainard,  1  Cowen's  R.,  78 — Paul  v.  Fra- 
zier,  3  Massachusetts  Reports,  71 — ^Riddle  v.  Proprietors  &,c.,  7 
Massachusetts  R.,  183 — Girardy  v.  Richardson,  1  Esp.  R.,  13.  See 
also  the  celebrated  case  of  Commonwealth  v.  Chccver,  (as  reported  in 
the  N.  Y.  Evangelist,  July  4,  1835,)  where  the  Attorney  General 
lays  down  the  rule  thus  : — '•'  What  the  law  allows  as  lawful,  it  pro- 
tects the  citizen  in  doing.  And  when  the  people,  by  the  law,  declare 
that  no  man  shall  make  rum,  then  if  the  distiller  is  libelled,  he 
has  no  cause  of  complaint."  So,  "  the  law  bids  these  reformers  ta 
forbear  to  libel  a  citizen  in  a  business  protected  and  sanctioned  by 
law." 

[The  counsel  read  and  commented  upon  these  authorities  at  con- 
siderable length.  His  comments  being  somewhat  technical,  we  shall 
not  attempt  to  report  them.] 

And  now,  may  it  please  your  Honor,  if  I  have  succeeded  in  satis- 
fying the  Court,  that  a  party  who  pursues  an  illegal  vocation  cannot 
maintain  an  action  for  a  libel  upon  him  in  that  vocation,  we  ask  you 
to  instruct  the  jury  to  find,  whether  this  plaintiff  was,  at  the  time  of 
the  publication  of  the  alleged  libel,  pursuing  such  a  vocation,  and 
whether  the  publication  is  of  him  in  that  vocation  ;  and  if  they  find 
these  issues  in  the  affirmative,  then  to  acquit  the  defendants,  however 
libellous  the  publication,  and  from  whatever  motives  put  forth. 

Having  now,  gentlemen  of  the  jury,  finished  this  exclusively  legal 
discussion,  it  remains  Jo  examine  before  you  the  two  main  facts  on 


31 

which  that  discussion  proceeded,  vi/.,  that  the  plaintiff  was  engaged 
in  the  traffic  in  spirituous  liquors,  without  a  license,  and  in  keeping 
a  tippl ing-house  ;  and  that  the  Dream  was  published  of  him  solely  in 
that  capacity. 

These  questions  are  for  your  determination,  and  if  you  find  that 
the  plaintiff  was  so  engaged,  and  that  the  publication  was  of  him  in 
such  vocation,  then,  should  the  Court  charge  you  on  the  point  of 
law  I  have  just  been  discussing,  according  to  my  request,  it  will  be 
your  duty  to  acquit  the  defendants  without  exploring  further  into  the 
merits  of  this  case. 

Infer  not  from  this,  that  the  defendants  are  seeking  to  escape 
through  some  technical  flaw  which  ingenuity  has  found  out  for  them* 
No  :  they  are  here  to  meet  this  case  in  all  its  aspects.  On  every 
point  which  it  presents,  they  ask  for  no  mercy  and  they  will  show  no 
quarter.  They  defy  the  plaintiff,  and  tell  him  he  shall  have  ample 
satisfaction  on  every  issue  tendered.  But,  he  has  dared  to  summon 
them  into  a  court  of  law,  and  they  will  hold  him  to  its  most  stringent 
rules  and  "  cavii  on  the  ninth  part  of  a  hair.'7  They  will  teach  him, 
that  as  respects  the  issue  he  tenders  to  them  at  this  bar,  he  has  no 
rights  here.  They  will  brand  him  "  OUTLAW  !"  The  sanctuary 
where  he  has  fled,  shall  become  the  altar  on  which  he  is  offered  up. 
He  has  invoked  JUSTICE.  Let  him  have  it.  It  shall  be  to  him  a 
consuming  fire.  But,  that  their  triumph  may  be  complete,  they  will 
waive  all  objection  to  his  forcible  entry,  never  asking  quare  clausum 
fregit,  and  give  him  a  locus  standi  in  Court,  and  then,  by  proving 
the  truth  of  the  libel,  will  drive  him  in  disgrace  from  your  bar.  Then,. 

"  Lay  on,  Macduff ; 
And  damn'd  be  he  that  first  cries.  Hold  !  Enough  !  " 

To  the  point : 

First.     Did  the  plaintiff  traffic  in  spirituous  liquors  without  a  li- 
cense 1     Did  he  keep  a  tippling-house,  in  violation  of  law  ? 

The  fact  that  he  was  not  licensed  according  to  the  provisions  of 
the  Revised  Statutes,  is  admitted. 

I  will  not  weary  your  patience  by  going  over  the  great  amount  of 
evidence  introduced  to  show  that  he  trafficed  in  ardent  spirits  and 
kept  a  dram-shop.  Nor  will  I  insult  your  understandings  by  seem- 
ing to  doubt  for  one  moment,  that  every  mind  on  your  panel  is  fully 
made  up  on  these  points.  As  to  the  great  extent  and  ruinous  conse- 
quences of  his  traffic,  and  the  atrocious  character  of  his  dram-shop,, 
I  shall  have  something  to  say  while  examining  another  branch  of  our 
defence. 

Second.     Was  this  Dream  written  and  published  of  the  plaintiff, 


:>oleiy  in  his  vocation  us  a  dealer  in  spirituous  liquors  and  the  keepei* 
of  a  tippling-house,  in  violation  of  law?  Or,  did  the  defendants  in 
their  publication  travel  out  of  the  line  of  his  business  and  attack 
him  in  other  respects  ? 

The  discussion  of  this  question  so  closely  embraces  another,  that 
for  our  convenience,  I  will  examine  them  both  at  once.  Then  let  us 
also  inquire : 

Third.  Is  this  Dream,  when  subjected  to  a  fair  interpretation, 
true  ?  Is  it,  when  its  real  meaning  is  ascertained,  a  justifiable  criti- 
cism upon  the  plaintiff's  business. 

Here  is  the  very  gist  of  this  case.  If  we  satisfy  you  that  this  pub- 
lication is  true,  his  Honor  will  instruct  you  that  we  are  entitled  to' 
your  verdict.  It  accords  with  the  common  serise  of  mankind  as  well 
ns  the  law  of  the  land,  that  in  civil  actions  for  libel,  the  establishing' 
of  the  truth  of  the  libel,  constitutes  a  complete  defence  to  the  action. 

You  are  aware  of  the  grounds  on  which  we  base  this  part  of  our 
defence.  We  have  set  forth  on  the  record,  that  this  publication  was 
made  solely  in  regard  to  the  traffic  in  spirituous  liquors  in  tippl ing- 
houses  and  dram-shops — that  the  plaintiff  was  engaged  in  such  traf- 
fic— that  the  publication  was  not  a  literal  description  of  scenes  which 
had  transpired,  but  an  allegorical  description  of  the  nature  and  ten- 
dencies of  such  traffic,  and  of  the  effects  of  the  excessive  use  of 
such  liquors — that  the  terms  and  epithets  employed  in  this  publica- 
tion were  not  literal  descriptions  of  the  persons  or  agents  engaged  in 
such  traffic,  nor  of  the  kinds  of  liquors  sold  by  them,  but  allegorical 
and  metonymical  descriptions  of  the  occupation  of  such  persons  or 
agents,  and  of  the  nature  and  tendencies  of  such  traffic,  and  of  the 
effects  of  the  excessive  use  of  such  liquors — and  that,  as  thus  under- 
stood, the  publication  is  true,  and  was  a  justifiable  criticism  upon  the 
plaintiff's  vocation. 

Let  us  now  examine  this  piece  of  writing,  and  search  out  its 
meaning. 

It  is  to  be  read  and  construed  by  you,  sitting  as  jurors,  precisely 
as  you  would  read  and  construe  it  at  your  own  firesides.  In  entering* 
a  Court  of  law,  it  has  brought  with  it  no  new  rules  of  construction. 
It  purports  to  be  an  allegory.  It  bears  for  its  caption  the  words,  "A 
Dream." 

This  kind  of  writing  is  among  the  earliest  known  to  the  history  of 
letters.  In  every  age,  it  has  been  among  the  commonest  modes  of 
conveying  thought  and  feeling.  Dr.  Campbell,  in  his  celebrated 
work  on  the  philosophy  of  rhetoric,  gives  the  true  reason  for  this, 
viz.  : — "  It  addresses  itself  to  the  natural  mind  of  man."  It  enters 
largely  into  every  species  of  composition,  sacred  and  profane.  To 


33 

It  we  are  indebted,  under  Divine  inspiration,  for  some  of  the  most 
beautiful,  sublime  and  instructive  passages  in  the  Bible.  It  is  the 
foundation  of  all  poetry,  whether  it  be  the  majestic  verse  of  Milton 
or  the  simple  ballad  of  Burns.  Its  occasional  introduction  kindles 
a  smile  on  the  face  of  the  gravest  essay,  while  its  more  constant  use 
never  wearies,  but  always  charms  in  the  lighter  novel  and  tale.  In 
adopting  this  kind  of  writing  "  to  hold  the  mirror  up  to  nature  ;  to 
show  virtue  her  own  feature,  scorn  her  own  image,"  the  defendants 
have  but  obeyed  the  instincts  of  our  common  humanity. 

Let  me  point  out  one  or  two  of  the  principal  rules  which  should 
guide  us  in  the  interpretation  of  this  species  of  composition. 

It  always  has  a  meaning,  but  it  is  not  prima  fade ;  a  literal  mean- 
ing. 

It  should  never  be  subjected  to  a  forced,  wilibmogeneous  construc- 
tion. 

Nor  should  it  be  made  to  contradict  itself,  by  construing  one  por- 
tion of  an  entire  piece  literally,  and  the  rest  figuratively.  It  should 
be  construed  as  a  whole,  and  in  consistency  with  its  general  scope 
and  tenor. 

The  reader  is  bound  to  take  it  for  what  the  writer  intended  it  to 
be,  unless  compelled  to  put  another  interpretation  upon  it.  To  this 
end,  he  should  get  at  the  mind  of  the  writer,  the  scene  before  him, 
and  his  object  and  aim. 

The  law,  in  actions  of  libel,  always  asks,  what  did  the  writer 
mean — how  shall  we  understand  him  ?  And  the  best  criterion  to 
decide  these  questions  is  to  inquire,  how  would  an  intelligent  reader, 
who  was  acquainted  with  the  subject  matter  and  with  the  feelings  of 
the  writer,  and  who  appreciated  his  object,  and  was  skilled  in  that 
sort  of  composition,  have  understood  him. 

In  the  light  of  these  rules,  let  us  interpret  this  Dream. 

The  first  paragraph  shows  the  motive  of  the  writer.  "  As  we  sat 
in  our  room,  thinking  what  more  could  be  done  to  advance  the  cause 
of  Temperance,  we  fell  asleep,"  &c.  There  he  exhibits  his  naked 
heart.  Let  him  have  the  benefit  of  its  philanthropic  pulsations. — 
What  is  the  evil  which  he  would  remove  ?  INTEMPERANCE — the 
master-curse  of  our  country — a  curse  which  drains  it  of  $140,000,- 
000  annually,  to  purchase  a  beverage  which  poisons,  not  refreshes — 
which  fills  our  alms-houses  with  250,000  paupers — which  crowds, 
our  jails  and  penitentiaries  with  50,000  criminals — which  instigates 
200  murders  annually — which  causes  two-thirds  of  the  suicides,  and 
one-third  of  the  insanity  in  the  nation,  destroying  the  bodies,  de- 
throning the  reason  and  ruining  the  souls  of  the  victims — .which  ex- 
cites half  the  quarrels,  and  causes  half  the  accidents  which  distract 
5 


34 

and  appal  society — which  recruits  an  army  of  500,UUU  American 
drunkards,  curses  to  themselves,  pests  in  the  community,  entailing 
disgrace  and  poverty  and  wounds  and  sorrow  on  countless  relations 
and  friends — which  mantles  the  nation  in  mourning,  by  consigning 
annually  to  premature  graves  40,000  of  its  citizens — which,  in  a 
word,  stands  out  prominently  in  the  midst  of  the  innumerable  phys- 
ical, social,  mental  and  moral  evils  which  afflict  our  race,  towering 
aloft,  the  monarch  of  the  realm. 

To  do  what  they  may  to  arrest  the  march  of  this  abomination  of 
desolation,  my  clients  have  consecrated  their  lives.  They  saw  this 
plaintiff  busily  employed  in  swelling  this  tide  of  ruin.  They  sketched 
his  likeness  and  hung  it  up  before  the  public  eye,  that  strong  and 
virtuous  men  might  abhor  him,  and  weak  and  erring  men  might  shun 

O  t  O  O 

him  as  they  would  the  walking  pestilence.  For  this  they  deserve  not 
Only  the  verdict  of  your  acquittal,  but  the  tribute  of  your  applause. 

In  this  same  paragraph,  the  defendants  describe  the  dram-shop  of 
the  plaintiff,  as  tf  that  house  of  human  slaughter;"  and  in  another, 
as  "  this  den  of  the  Devil.75  These  are  figurative  expressions,  and 
I  only  mention  this  because,  being  in  the  introductory  part  of  the 
Dream,  they  furnish  the  key  of  interpretation  to  unlock  the  meaning 
of  the  whole.  But,  properly  understood,  was  not  Wilbar's  shop  a  house 
of  human  slaughter  ?  From  all  the  testimony,  it  appears  that  he 
was  a  large  dealer  in  intoxicating  liquors — the  largest  in  "  Rum 
Hollow,"  so  called,  in  Taunton,  Signs,  bearing  the  wofds,:  "Rum," 
"  Brandy,"  "  Gin,"  were  suspended  on  his  door,  giving  token  of 
what  was  on  sale  within.  Shameless  exhibition  of  his  infamous 
trade  !  His  shop  was  crowded  with  hogsheads,  barrels,  kegs,  de- 
canters, and  bottles  of  these  liquid  poisons.  Night  and  day  was  it 
haunted  with  miserable  creatures,  to  be  counted  by  scores,  in  every 
stage  of  intoxication.  The  old  drunkard,  from  whose  brow  inebrie- 
ty was  effacing  the  last  lineaments  of  God's  image,  Was  there.  The 
youth,  sowing  the  first  seeds  of  that  appetite  whose  ripe  fruits  would 
poison  body  and  soul,  was  there.  Graceless  woman,  exchanging  her 
virtue  for  rum  ;  unsuspecting  childhood,  just  crossing  the  threshold 
of  temptation,  were  there.  Brawling,  quarreling,  blasphemy*  were 
there.  The  streams  of  liquid  fire  were  unsealed,  and  constantly  run- 
ning, month  in  and  month  out,  every  hour  in  the  day,  not  excepting 
the  sacred  Sabbath.  At  night,  the  wretched  customers  of  this  plain- 
tiff, who  were  too  intoxicated  to  stagger  to  their  affrighted  homes, 
were  pitched  out  of  the  doors,  often  by  the  dozen,  to  wallow  in  the 
mud  or  chill  in  the  snow,  while  the  inhuman  author  of  their  miseries 
closed  the  gates  of  his  hell  and  went  home  to  sleep,  not  in  the  peni- 
tentiary, but  in  his  own  bed  with  none  to  molest  or  make  him  afraid. 


Was  it  not  a  house  of  human  slaughter  r  Was  it  not  the  temple  of 
Drunkenness, where  this  plaintiff,  as  ministering  priest,  offered  up  the 
.daily  sacrifice  to  his  remorseless  Deity  ?  Says  the  poet  Young  : 

"  In  our  world,  Death  4eputes 
Intemperance  to  do  the  work  of  Age  ; 
And,  hanging  up  .the  quiver  nature  gave  him, 
As  slow  of  execution,  for  dispatch 
Sends  forth  licensed  butchers ;  bids  them  slay 
Their  sheep  (the  silly  sheep  they  fleeced  before) 
And  toss  him  twice  ten  thousand  at  a  meal. 

O  what  heaps  of  slain 
Cry  out  for  vengeance  on  them  1" 

Our  butcher,  unlike  those  of  Young's  time,  was  not  licensed. 

The  Dream  goes  on  to  say,  that  "  the  presiding  genius  of  the 
place,  was  the  incarnate  devil.  On  an  elevated  seat  in  the  back  part 
of  this  indescribable  hell,  he  sat ;  while  ever  and  anon  there  issued 
from  his  mouth  flames  of  fire  which  withered  and  scorched  the  delu- 
ded wretches  who  had  been  enticed  within,"  &,c. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  all  writers,  sacred  and  profane,  serious 
and  comic,  prosaic  and  poetic,  have  installed  the  Devil  as  the  pre- 
siding deity  over  the  orgies  of  Drunkenness. 

The  prophet  Isaiah,  in  lamenting  the  intemperance  of  his  time, 
says,  after  describing  the  drunken  feasts  of  the  Jews,  "  my  people 
are  gone  into  captivity,  and  hell  hath  enlarged  herself."  Paul,  in 
warning  the  Corinthians  against  intemperance,  says,  "  Ye  cannot 
drink  of  the  cup  of  the  Lord  and  the  cup  of  devils."  Shakspeare 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  Cassio,  after  a  debauch,  these  words  : — "  O 
thou  invisible  spirit  of  wine,  if  thou  hast  no  name  to  be  known  by, 
let  us  call  thee — devil."  Again :  tc  Every  inordinate  cup  is  unblessed, 
and  the  ingredient  is  a  devil."  The  writers  of  fiction  and  poetry 
furnish  innumerable  illustrations  of  a  like  character.  I  quote  but 
one  more,  which,  though  long,  is  graphic,  and  helps  on  the  argument. 
It  is  by  Makay,  a  living  British  poet,  and  is  entitled — 

THE    DREAM    OF    THE    REVELLER. 


Around  the  board  the  guests  were  met,  the  lights  above  them  gleaming, 

And  in  their  cups  replenished  oft,  the  ruddy  wine  was  streaming  ;      [bounded, 

Their  cheeks  were  flushed,  their  eyes  were  bright,  their  hearts  with  pleasure 

The  song  was  sung,  the  toast  was  giv'n,  and  loud  the  revel  sounded ; 

I  drained  my  bumper  with  the  rest,  and  cried,  "  away  with  sorrow, 

Let  me  be  happy  for  to-day,  and  care  not  for  to-morrow  !" 

But  as  I  spoke,  my  sight  grew  dim,  and  slumber  deep  came  o'er  me, 

And  'mid  the  whirl  of  mingling  tongues,  this  vision  passed  before  me, 


36 

>lethought  I  aaw  a  demon  rise  ;  lu«  held  a  mighty  bicker. 

Whose  burnished  aides  ran  daily  oVr,  with  floods  of  burning  liquor  : 

Around  him  pressed  a  clunvrous  crowd,  to  taste  this  liquor  greedy, 

But  chiefly  came  the  poor  and  sad,  the  stiff  Ymg  and  the  needy  ; 

All  those  oppressed  by  grief  and  debt,  the  dissolute  and  lazy, 

Blear-eyed  old  men,  and  reckless  youths,  and  palsied  women  crazy. 

i4  Give, give  !"  they  cry,  "  give,  give  us  drink  to  drown  all  thoughts  of  sorrow^ 

41  If  we  are  happy  for  to-day,  we  care  not  for  to-morrow!" 

The  first  drop  warms  their  shivering  skins,  and  drives  away  their  sadness, 
The  second  lights  their  sunken  eyes,  and  fills  their  souls  with  gladness ; 
The  third  drop  makes  them  shout  and  roar,  and  play  each  furious  antic, 
The  fourth  drop  boils  their  very  blood,  and  the  fifth  drop  drives  them  frantic. 
1C  Drink  !5>  says  the  demon,  li  drink  your  fill !  drink  of  these  waters  mellow, 
'•  They'll  make  your  bright  eyes  blear  arid  dull, and  turn  your  white  skins  yellow, 
"  They'll  fill  your  home  with  care  and  grief,  and  clothe  your  back  with  tatters, 
tk  They'll  fill  your  h^ar.t  with  evil  thoughts, — but  never  mind — what  matters?" 

u  Though  virtue  sink,  and  reasoning  fall,  and  social  ties  dissever, 

ril  be  your  friend  in  hour  of  need,  and  find  you  homes  forever  ; 

For  I  have  built  three  mansions  high,  three  .strong  and  goodly  houses, 

A  work-house  for  the  jolly  soul,  who  all  his  life  carouses. 

An  hospital  to  lodge  the  sot,  oppress'd  by  pain  and  anguish. 

A  prison  full  of  dungeons  deep,  where  hopeless  felons  languish. 

So  drain  the  cup  and  drain  again,  and  drown  all  thought  of  sorrow, 

Be  happy  if  you  can  to-day,  and  never  mind  to-morrow  /" 

But  well  he  knows,  this  demon  old,  how  vain  is  all  his  preaching, 
The  ragged  crew  that  round  him  flock,  are  heedless  of  his  teaching  ; 
Even  as  they  hear  his  fearful  words,  they  cry  with  shouts  of  laughter, 
"  Out  on  the  fool !  who  mars  to-day  with  thoughts  of  an  hereafter. 
tl  We  care  not  for  thy  houses  three,  we  live  but  for  .the  presc?it  : 
<{  And  merry  will  we  make  it  yet,  and  quaff  our  bumpers  pleasant." 
Loud  laughs  the  fiend  to -hear  them  speak,  and  lifts  his  brimming  bicker, 
11  Body  and  soul  are  mine!"  quoth  he — "  I'll  have  them  both  for  liquor  !" 

Was  not  the  author  of  our  Dream  right  when  he  installed  the  in- 
carnate Devil  as  the  presiding  deity  of  William  Wilbar's  dram-shop? 

The  Dream  further  says  :  "  Around  the  store  were  arranged  casks, 
barrels  and  demijohns,  some  of  which  were  labelled  as  follows  : — 
MAN-KILLER — MANIAC  BEVERAGE — ORPHAN  MAKER — SOUL  DES- 
TROYER— THE  DEVIL'S  SYRUP — DRUNKARD'S  COUGH  and  DELIRIUM 
TREMENS,  &,c." 

Of  course,  this  is  not  literal.  It  is  the  use  of  the  rhetorical  figure 
called  metonomy,  i.  e.,  putting  the  effect  for  the  cause.  The  passage 
simply  means,  that  the  excessive  use  of  the  liquors  sold  by  the  plain- 
tiff, often  produced  the  effects  named  in  these  labels.  As  thus  inter- 
preted, the  passage  is  true. 


37 

Ardent  spirits  are  ti  "  MAN-KILLER."  They  destroy  life  by  pro* 
ducing  disease.  Speaking  to  this  point,  how  frightful  is  the  cata^ 

logue  of  Milton  ; 

"All  maladies 

-Of  gb&stly  £pastti,or  racking  torture,  qualms 
Of  heart-sick  agony,  all  feverous  kinds, 
Convulsions,  epilepsies^  fierce  catarrhs, 
•Intestine,  stone  and  ulcer,  cholic  pangs, 
Demoniac  phreozy,  moping  melancholy, 
£nd  moon-struck  madness,  pining  atrophy, 
Marasmus,  and  wide  wasting  pestilence, 
Dropsies  and  asthmas,  and  joint-racking  rheums  !  " 

What  a  fearful  list  of  diseases,  produced  by  intemperance,  did 
Doct.  Jewett  give  us  from  the  stand.  He  also  stated  that  the  intem- 
perate patient  was  more  difficult  to  cure  than  others,  his  habits  baff- 
ling the  skill  of  the  physician.  Says  the  celebrated  Dr.  Rush, 
'.'  Spirituous  liquors  destroy  more  lives  than  the  sword.  War  has 
its  intervals  of  destruction  ;  but  spirits  operate  at  all  times  and  sea- 
sons upon  human  life."  He  adds,  that  "  ardent  spirits  dispose  the 
system  to  disease  of  all  kinds."  To  the  same  effect  is  the  testimo- 
ny of  all  the  distinguished  physicians  of  this  country  arid  England, 
and  of  all  the  leading  medical  societies  in  both  nations. 

But  ardent  spirits  instigate  to  murder,  produce  death  by  suicide, 
accidents,  and  various  other  means,  and  so  are  properly  called  "  Man- 
killer."  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  the  great  light  of  criminal  jurisprudence, 
says,  "  if  all  the  murders,  manslaughters  and  rapes,  which  have  been 
committed  during  the  20  years  I  have  been  on  the  Bench,  were  di- 
vided into  five  parls,  four  of  them  would  be  found  to  have  resulted 
from  intemperance."  Says  a  distinguished  French  lawyer,  (i  of  1129 
murders  committed  in  France  during  four  years,  446  were  the  con- 
sequence of  quarrels  in  tippling-houses."  The  Coroner  of  London 
said  recently,  "  I  think  intoxication  is  the  cause  of  one  half  the  in- 
quests that  are  held  in  the  metropolis."  Rev.  Dr.  Cathcart,  of  Pa., 
kept  an  account  of  all  the  murders  committed  in  this  country  in  one 
year.  He  says,  "  of  the  209  murders,  a  very  large  proportion  are 
known  to  have  been  occasioned  by  the  immediate  use  of  ardent 
spirits."  The  late  Chief  Justice  Parsons  said,  "  I  have  been  so  long 
in  the  habit  of  hearing  criminals  of  all  grades  refer  all  their  miser- 
ies to  intemperance,  that  I  have  ceased  to  ask  them  the  cause  of 
their  ruin."  S.  Chipman,  Esq,,  who  has  visited  every  penitentiary, 
jail  and  work-house  in  the  State  of  New  York,  in  search  of  facts, 
says,  that  in  his  opinion,  "  more  than  five-sixths  of  the  persons  com- 
mitted on  criminal  charges  are  intemperate."  Hugh  Maxwell,  Esq., 
of  New  York  city,  has  stated,  that  of  the  twenty  cases  of  murder 


38 

tried  by  him  while  prosecuting  attorney,  every  one  was  caused  by 
intemperance.  I  have  lying  before  me  a  mass  of  testimony  to  the 
same  effect  from  judges,  prosecuting  officers,  and  wardens  of  state 
prisons,  all  over  the  country.  I  will  not  weary  you  with  detailing  it. 
Rev.  Mr.  Curtis,  the  worthy  Chaplain  of  our  own  State  prison,  has 
told  you  from  the  stand,  that  in  his  opinion,  from  an  observation  of 
it-he  causes  of  crime  for  twenty  years,  more  than  three-fourths  of  all 
jthe  crimes,  from  the  petty  assault  up  to  red-handed  murder,  are  at- 
tributable to  intemperance.  Dr.  Jewett  has  testified  that  the  number 
.of  deaths  in  our  country  annually,  caused  by  drunkenness,  is  more 
than  35,000. 

But,  we  find  proof  lying  at  the  very  door  of  the  plaintiff's  shop, 
that  rum  is  a  man-killer.  The  poor  wretch  Kenny,  a  regular  cus- 
tomer of  Wilbar's,  staggers  from  his  counter  and  in  two  days  dies  in 
a  horrible  fit  of  delirium  tremens.  Poor  Barton,  another  constant 
customer  of  Wilbar's,  and  whose  Y/idow  with  her  weeds  fresh  upon 
her  brow,  has  told  you  the  sad  story  of  her  husband's  fate — he  seizes 
an  axe  in  a  fit  of  delirium  tremens  and  attempts  to  slaughter  his  wife 
and  children,  and  finally  dies  in  the  Worcester  Asylum.  Truly  is 
rum  a  man-killer,  and  William  Wilbar  traffics  in  i(  distilled  death 
and  liquid  damnation." 

So  are  ardent  spirits  a  "  MANIAC  BEVERAGE."  Dr.  Jewett  has 
told  you  they  are  a  fruitful  source  of  insanity.  The  reports  of  the 
Worcester  Asylum  abundantly  attest  this  truth.  Of  the  272  patients 
admitted  in  one  year,  the  insanity  of  56  was  caused  by  intemperance  : 
and  I  select  but  an  average  statement.  Out  of  495  patients  admit- 
ted into  the  Lunatic  Asylum,  in  Liverpool,  257  came  to  that  state 
through  intemperance.  Well  might  the  drunken  Cassio  say,  "  O 
that  men  should  put  an  enemy  in  their  mouths,  to  steal  away  their 
brains  !  "  And  truly  does  Holy  Writ  say  of  men  like  this  plaintiff, 
"  Cursed  is  he  that  putteth  the  cup  to  his  neighbor's  lips  !  " 

So  are  ardent  spirits  an  "  ORBHAN  MAKER."  They  make  wives 
widows,  and  children  fatherless.  They  send  both  parents  to  early 
graves — the  father  dies  with  delirium  tremens — the  mother  hides  her 
broken  heart  in  the  tomb — the  children  find  their  refuge  in  the  alms- 
house.  We  may  say  of  this  infamous  plaintiff,  «  He  hath  no  child- 
ren !  "  for,  methinks  a  father  would  pity  and  spare. 

Rum  is  a  "  SOUL-DESTROYER."  Well  did  Rev.  Mr.  Curtis  define 
the  soul  to  consist  of  the  reason,  the  will  and  the  affections.  All 
these,  intemperance  destroys.  Nor  can  we  forget  that  awful  passage 
of  Holy  Writ,  il  No  drunkard  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 
Wo  to  this  plaintiff  when  Divine  Justice  "  maketh  inquisition  for 
blood  !  " 


39 

Ardent  spirits  ate  '4  THE  DEVIL'S  SYRUP."  This  is  an  apt  name 
lor  what  the  eloquent  Robert  Hall  called  *'  distilled  death  and  liquid 
damnation."  Wilbar  did  sell  the  Devil's  Syrup,  and  he  was  the  dev- 
il's agent.  Qui  facit per  alium,  facit  per  sc. 

.Rum  is  the  "  DRUNKARD'S  COUGH  AND  DELIRIUM  TREMENS." — 
Dr.  Jevvett  has  described  to  you  the  peculiar  cough  of  the  drunkard, 
and  has  told  you  that  nothing  else  produces  delirium  tremens  but  al- 
cohol. So  say  all  the  authorities.  Of  all  the  diseases  which  appal 
mankind,  delirium  tremcns,  the  trembling  delirium,  the  fearful  mad- 
ness, is  the  most  horrible.  This  terrible  insanity,  summons  around 
the  bedside  of  the  tortured  wretch,  all  that  is  loathsome  on  earth  and 
frightful  in  hell.  Other  kinds  of  madness  are  often  accompanied 
with  pleasing  delusions,  this  never.  At  one  moment,  the  sufferer 
fancies  himself  covered  with  disgusting  vermin.  At  the  next,  le- 
gions of  devils  glare  upon  him  and  torment  him  before  his  time. — 
Methinks  the  sacred  penman  must  have  had  this  appalling  disease 
before  him  when  he  spoke  of  the  wrath  of  God  as  "  the  cup  of  trem- 
bling " — the  cup  of  tremcns  !  May  a  merciful  Providence  never 
commend  to  this  plaintiff  the  fearful  cup  which  he  So  often  applied 
to  the  lips  of  his  neighbors.  May  he  never  meet  the  fate  of  Kenny 
and  Barton,  whom  his  murderous  vocation  sent  to  the  bar  of  God 
before  their  time. 

The  passage  of  the  Dream  on  which  I  have  been  commenting,  al- 
so states,  that  signs  were  nailed  to  the  walls  of  the  plaintiff's  shop, 
bearing  inscriptions  like  these  :  "  MEN  TRAINED  HERE  FOR  THE  GAL- 
LOWS. LESSONS  GIVEN  IN  SUICIDE.  CHILDREN  INSTRUCTED  IN  THE 

ROAD  TO  DEATH  !  " 

The  same  remark  applies  to  this  part  of  the  passage,  as  to  the 
the  other.  It  is  not  literal,  but  is  a  metonymical  description  of  the 
liquors  sold  by  the  plaintiff — putting  the  effect  for  the  Cause.  It  is  in 
evidence,  that  by  the  door  of  this  shop  were  signs  bearing  the  words 
Rum,  Brandy,  Gin,  &c.  These,  and  other  similar  liquors,  were 
largely  sold  by  the  plaintiff.  According  to  our  rule  of  construction, 
this  passage  of  the  libel  is  true. 

Ardent  spirits  do  "  TRAIN  MEN  FOR  THE  GALLOWS."  I  have  al- 
ready shown  that  a  large  share  of  the  murders  are  caused  by  intem- 
perance ;  and  therefore,  the  dram-shop  furnishes  a  large  share  of  the 
victims  for  the  extreme  penalty  of  the  law.  Two  of  the  recent  mur- 
ders in  this  State,  for  which  the  offenders  have  been  executed,  were 
committed  through  the  influence  of  intoxication.  The  rumseller 
and  the  hangman  stand  to  each  other  in  the  relation  of  producer  and 
consumer.  The  one  trains  men  for  the  gallows;  the  other  hangs 
them  on  it. 


40 

Intoxicating  liquors  do  GIVE  LESSONS  IN  SUICIDE.  Suicide  is  self- 
destruction.  Mankind  are  suspended  by  i(  the  brittle  thread  "  over 
the  grave,  lie  who  cuts  that  thread  by  a  single  stroke  of  his  own 
hand  and  drops  into  eternity,  is  a  pell-murderer.  He  who  wears 
away  its  fibres  by  constant  friction,  and  weakens  it,  so  that  it  pre- 
maturely breaks,  is  also  a  self-murderer,  a  gradual  suicide.  Intem- 
perance produces  both  these  results.  An  able  medical  writer  states, 
that  more  than  half  the  suicides  in  this  country — I  now  speak  of  di- 
rect and  instantaneous  self-murder — are  committed  through  the  in- 

o 

fluence  of  intemperance.  You  recollect  the  statement  1  read  from  , 
the  Coroner  of  London,  that  intoxication  was  the  cause  of  half  the 
inquests  held  by  him.  As  to  gradual  self-murder,  we  have  the  testi- 
mony of  Dr.  Jewett,  that  in  America,  intemperance,  by  slow  but 
sure  steps,  carries  its  tens  of  thousands  to  an  annual  grave.  Dr. 
Rush  declares  that  "  the  constant  use  of  ardent  spirits,  like  a  bold 
invader,  seizes  on  the  very  vitals  of  the  constitution,  and  does  not 
give  over  till  it  has  destroyed  its  victims."  On  this  point,  the  testi- 
mony of  medical  men  is  overwhelming.  Then,  figuratively,  Wil- 
liam Wilbar's  shop  was  an  establishment  where  lessons  were  given 
in  self-destruction.  No  thanks  to  him  or  his  accursed  trade,  that 
half  his  customers,  long  ere  this,  have  not,  with  suicidal  hands, 
opened  to  themselves  the  Gate  of  Fear. 

The  dram-shop  does  "INSTRUCT  CHILDREN  IN  THE  ROAD  TO 
DEATH." 

It  is  in  evidence  that  children  were  often  seen  in  and  around  the 
plaintiff's  shop — sometimes  in  search  of  a  drunken  father — some- 
times to  purchase  rum — sometimes  as  spectators  of,  or  participants 
in,  the  Bacchanalian  revels  over  which  \Vilbar  and  his  great  partner, 
the  Devil,  presided. 

Does  intemperance  lead  to  death  ?  Who  doubts  it?  Is  the  child 
apt  in  following  the  example  of  his  elders,  especially  his  parents  ? — 
Says  Solomon,  train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go,  and  when 
he  is  old  he  will  not  depart  from  it.  Pope's  expressive  line  has  be- 
come an  adage — just  as  the  twig  is  bent  the  tree  's  inclined.  Says 
the  same  philosophic  poet : 

Vice  is  a  monster  of  so  frightful  mem, 
As  to  be  hated  needs  but  to  be  seen  ; 
Yet,  seen  too  oft,  familiar  with  her  face, 
We  first  endure,  then  pity,  then  embrace. 

The  admitted  fact  that  the  offspring  of  intemperate  parents  are 
more  apt  to  become  intemperate  than  those  of  sober  progenitors, 
arises  also  from  another  cause,  viz.  :  the  appetite  for  strong  drink  ac- 


41 

quired  by  the  parent  is,  by  natural  generation,  communicated  to  the 
ctiild.  This  appetite  is  a  disease  ;  and  like  many  other  diseases,  is 
hereditary.  Aristotle  says,  (i  Drunken  women  bring  forth  children 
like  unto  themselves/'  Dr.  Darwin  thus  expresses  himself,  "  all  the 
diseases  arising  from  drinking  spirituous  liquors,  are  liable  to  become 
hereditary,  even  to  the  third  generation,  gradually  increasing,  if  the 
cause  be  continued,  till  the  family  becomes  extinct."  The  celebra- 
ted Dr.  Caldwell  says,  '"  By  habits  of  intemperance,  parents  not  only 
degrade  and  ruin  themselves,  but  transmit  the  elements  of  like  deg- 
radation and  ruin  to  their  posterity."  See  also,  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Sewall,  in  his  Pathology  of  Drunkenness,  page  14,  and  a  large  ac- 
cumulation of  facts  and  opinions  in  the  Prize  Essay  called  Bacchus 
— ^two  works  which  I  commend  to  the  careful  study  of  this  plaintiff, 
and  which  will  teach  him  that  his  dram-shop  is  the  gateway  of  hell, 
opening  the  avenues  of  death  to  the  old  and  the  young.  And  if  his 
learned  counsel  will  con  them  over,  he  will  be  satisfied  of  the  truth 
of  the  inuendo  he  has  thrown  into  this  part  of  our  Dream,  namely, 
that  the  plaintiff  was  engaged  in  the  detestable  crime  of  corrupting 
the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  youth  of  this  Commonwealth. 

The  Dream  also  states,  that  "  Directly  over  the  place  wherfe  Wil- 
bar  stood,  were  suspended  a  skull  and  cross-bones."  Although  the 
Counsel  who  drew  the  declaration  has  twice  set  forth  this  passage,  he 
has  not  seen  fit  to  append  to  it  any  inuendoes.  He  seems  to  be  at 
fault  in  divining  its  meaning.  I  will  assist  him  in  interpreting  this 
part  of  the  Dream.  The  skull  and  cross-bones  are  the  emblem  of 
death.  They  are  sculptured  on  grave-stones  to  tell  the  passer-by 
that  Death  has  been  busy  there.  How  appropriately,  then*  is  this 
death  emblem  suspended  over  the  head  of  the  human  butcher  who 
slaughters  mankind  in  Rum  Hollow,  in  Taunton  ? 

We  have  now  reached  that  passage  in  this  publication,  where  the 
plaintiff,  when  driven  from  every  other  spot,  will  take  his  stand  and 
ask  for  your  verdict.  I  will  read  it : 

•"  Customers  now  flocked  in,  some  cufsing  arid  swearing,  others 
quarreling  and  fighting.  Among  the  number  was  a  young  man  who 
stepped  up  to  the  counter  and  called  for  a  glass  of  LUCIFER'S  ELIXIR. 
At  this  moment,  a  fiendish  chuckle  was  heard,  and  Wilbar,  looking 
towards  the  Devil,  clapped  his  thumb  upon  his  nose  and  with  a  sig- 
nificant look,  which  was  answered  by  his  majesty,  proceeded  to  pour 
oiit  the  burning  liquid.  The  young  man  drank  to  the  very  bottom 
of  the  glass  and  with  a  horrid  yell  fell  down  dead  upon  the  floor. — 
His  pockets  were  immediately  rifled  of  their  contents,  and  lest  life 
should  not  be  entirely  extinct,  another  glass  was  poured  down  his 
thrtiat." 

6 


ts 

I  mention  lierc,  (and  it  will  become  important  soon,)  that  in  his 
declaration,  the  plaintiff  has  omitted  those  words  which  I  have 
marked  in  italics. 

lie  insists,  that  however  it  may  be  with  the  rest  of  the  Dream, 
the  writer  has,  in  this  paragraph,  departed  from  the  line  of  the  plain- 
tiff's vocation  as  a  rum-seller,  and  charged  him  specifically  and  Jifc- 
erally  with  the  crimes  of  murder  and  robbery.  In  his  various  inu- 
endoes  he  says,  this  paragraph  means,  that  "  the  young  man  drank 
of  a  beverage  given  to  him  knowingly  and  maliciously  by  said  Wil- 
bar, whereby  he  died — that  the  said  Wilbar,  by  force  and  arms,  did 
violently  and  feloniously  take  the  property  of  that  young  man,  so  de- 
ceased as  aforesaid,  and  appropriate  the  same  to  his  own  use — that 
said  Wilbar  wilfully,  wickedly  and  with  malice  aforethought,  did 
with  force  and  arms  make  an  assault  upon  the  said  young  man,  and 
whereby  he  wil fully  and  designedly  took  his  life,  with  the  intent 
thereby  to  rob  him  of  his  money,  goods  and  chattels — that  by  the 
aiding  and  abetting  of  Wilbar,  men  were  wilfully  and  maliciously 
killed— 4hat  he  administered  to  some  person  in  his  shop  a  deadly 
poison  which  caused  instant  death — that  he  committed  the  sacrelig- 
ious  and  felonious  act  of  robbing  from  the  dead,"  &,c.,  &/c. 

Now,  may  it  please  your  Honor,  we  ask  the  Court  to  instruct  the 
Jury,  that  the  plaintiff  is  bound  to  satisfy  them  that  the  meaning  set 
forth  in  his  inuendoes,  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  paragraph,  and 
that  if  they  find  it  does  not  mean  what  the  plaintiff  has  set  forth, 
then  he  has,  so  far  as  this  paragraph  is  concerned,  failed  to  make  out 
his  case — and  this  too,  even  though  they  should  be  of  the  opinion, 
that  the  paragraph,  rightly  construed,  is  libellous,  and  the  defendants 
have  failed  to  prove  it  to  be  true.  To  these  points,  I  cite,  1  Starkie 
on  Slander,  421,  and  2  Starkie,  51-2,  (Wendell's  edition,)  and  Old- 
ham  V.  Peake,  2  W.  Blackstone's  R.,  959. 

We  also  ask  your  Honor  to  instruct  the  Jury,  that  if  they  find,, 
that  by  omitting  the  words  "  clapped  his  thumb  upon  his  nose,  and 
with  a  significant  look,  which  was  answered  by  his  majesty  "  the' 
plaintiff  has  altered  the  meaning  or  changed  the  sense,  or  has  con- 
fused the  meaning  and  rendered  the  sense  doubtful,  that  then  he  must,, 
so  far  as  this  paragraph  is  concerned,  fail  in  his  action ;  for,  be  has- 
not  set  out  the  libel  which  the  defendants  published. 

That  this  is  sound  law,  I  cite  1  Starkie  on  Slander, 377,  380,  381, 
and  note  (c)  at  the  bottom  of  that  page  (Wendell's  edition.)  Also,. 
Tabbart  v.  Tipper,  1  Campbell's  R.,  352-3. 

I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  two  questions  First? 
does  this  paragraph  mean  what  the  plaintiff  has  set  forth  in  his  inu- 
endoes ?  Second,  what  does  it  mean,  when  fairly  construed  ? 


43 

This  paragraph  is  to  be  read  in  the  light  of  the  whole  article,  and 
m  consistency  with  its  general  character  and  scope.  When  it  pur- 
ports to  be  and  is,  in  its  outlines  and  in  its  details,  an  allegory,  a 
dream,  you  should,  before  consenting  that  any  part  of  it  is  a  literal 
statement  of  events  which  transpired,  be  forced  to  that  conclusion. 

Now,  did  a  young  man  call  for  a  glass  of  Lucifer's  Elixir,  literal* 
ly  1  Was  a  fiendish  chuckle  heard,  literally  ?  Did  Wilbar  look 
towards  the  Devil,  literally  ?  Did  he  clap  his  thumb  upon  his  nose, 
literally  ?  Was  his  significant  look  answered  by  his  majesty,  liter- 
ally ?  Gentlemen,  there  is  not  one  of  you  who,  at  the  first  glance, 
does  not  see  that  this  is  a  mere  fancy  sketch.  Then,  for  the  same 
reasons  that  you  believe  this  to  be  a  fancy  sketch,  you  must  believe 
the  rest  of  the  paragraph  to  be  but  a  continuation  of  that  sketch. — 
No  man  but  this  plaintiff,  no  thing  but  this  writ,  is  so  absurd  as  to 
believe  that  the  writer,  with  no  other  passport  but  a  comma,  suddenly 
leaped  from  the  airy  regions  of  fancy  to  the  terra  firma  of  reality. — - 
Then,  Wilbar  did  not  literally  pour  out  the  burning  liquid — for, 
there  was  no  Lucifer's  Elixir  there.  The  young  man  did  not  liter- 
ally drink  it — for,  there  was  no  young  man  there  who  called  for  Lu- 
cifer's Elixir.  He  did  not  literally  fall  down  dead  on  Wilbar's  floor 
for,  he  was  no  more  literally  there  than  was  the  Devil.  And,  not 
being  there  nor  falling  down  dead,  another  glass  of  Lucifer's  Elixir 
was  not  poured  down  his  throat,  nor  were  his  pockets  rifled. 

Thus,  gentlemen,  all  these  terrible  inuendoes3  which  the  fertile  or 
frightened  imagination  of  the  learned  counsel  has  conjured  up,  van- 
ish into  thin  air  on  examination,  as  Macbeth's  ghost  vanished  on  be- 
ing questioned.  I  think  the  counsel  must  have  been  dreaming  when 
he  drafted  this  part  of  his  declaration.  And  he  might  well  go  to 
sleep  over  a  writ  three  yards  long.  This,  too,  will  account  for  his 
leaving  out  those  words — the  very  key  which  unlocks  the  meaning 
of  the  whole  passage. 

But,  say  you,  what  had  the  writer  in  his  eye  when  he  penned  this 
paragraph — what  meaning  did  he  intend  to  convey  ?  This, — he  was 
sketching  with  a  free,  bold  pencil  what  might  naturally  happen,  and 
what  has  happened  a  thousand  times,  in  such  low,  filthy,  cursed  tip- 
pling houses  as  that  kept  by  William  Wilbar.  He  meant  to  write  it 
so  plainly  that  he  that  run  might  read  it,  and  a  wayfaring  man  though 
a  grog-seller,  need  not  err  in  regard  to  it,  that  rum  murdered  men, 
and  that  the  rumseller,  who  filched  money  from  the  pockets  of  his 
customers  and  gave  them  rum  in  return,  was  a  robber ;  and,  gentle- 
men, look  you  there,  and  BEHOLD  THE  MAN  ! 

I  have  now  gone  through  with  the  main  points  in  those  parts  of 
this  dream  which  the  plaintiff  has  incorporated  into  his  writ.  He 


he-is  omitted  many  portions  of  it — and  i  follow  his  example.  I  have 
dwelt  long  upon  this  p;irt  of  the  case,  beeause  I  wished  to  satisfy 
you  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  that  this  whole  publication  was 
written  of  the  plaintiff  in  his  vocation  as  a  dealer  in  spirituous  li- 
quors, in  violation  of  law  ;  and  that,  in  its  outlines  and  details,  it  is 
true,  and  is  a  justifiable  criticism  upon  his  vocation.  And,  so  am.ple 
has  been  our  proof,  that  I  feel  authorized  to  brand  this  J)ream,  with 
all  its  glowing  epithets  and  lines  of  fire,  into  jhe  forehead  of  this 
man,  telling  him  to  wear  it  as  a  fitting  frontlet,  that  the  world  may 
take  knowledge  of  his  character  and  occupation. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  I  think  I  might  stqphere  and  ask  for  your 
verdict.  But,  as  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  divine  your  thoughts, 
and  as  it  is  but  discharging  a  duty  I  owe  to  my  clients,  to  leave  no 
part  of  this  case  unexamined,  I  will  investigate  the  only  remaining 
question  submitted  to  your  decision. 

If,  on  all  the  issues  I  have  argued  to  you,  you  should  find  for  the 
plaintiff,  an  important  question  then  arises :  What  damages  shall  he 
recover  at  your  hands  ? 

The  foundation  of  the  action  for  libel  is,  that  by  the  publication 
complained  of,  the  plaintiff  has  sustained  an  injury  which  he  seeks  to 
repair  by  compensation  in  damages.  In  the  present  case,  William 
Wilbar  alleges  in  his  writ,  with  vast  amplitude  of  statement,  that  this 
Dream  has  injured  his  business  and  stained  his  character ;  and  he 
comes  to  your  bar  and  asks  for  money  to  repair  his  losses  in  trade 
and  reputation. 

The  plaintiff  sets  forth  in  his  list  of  grievances,  that  he  was  en- 
gaged in  a  wide  and  profitable  business — that  he  was  diligent  in 
trade — that. he  was  carrying  on  his  business  with  the  reasonable  ex- 
pectation of  thereby  gaining  an  honest  livelihood  and  a  just  prefer- 
ment and  good  estimation  with  all  the  good  and  honest  citizens  of 
Taunton — that  he  was  a  true,  honest,  just  and  faithful  citizen  of  this 
Commonwealth — -that  by  his  diligence  in  trade  he  had  obtained  a 
good  name,  fame  and  credit  among  his  honest,  worthy  and  reputable 
neighbors — and  that  these  defendants,  envying  his  reputation,  and 
maliciously  intending  to  bring  him  into  public  scandal,  infamy  and 
disgrace,  and  ruin  his  wide  and  profitable  business  with  those  good 
and  worthy  citizens  of  Taunton  with  whom  he  was  honestly,  justly 
and  truly  dealing  in  his  occupation,  published  of  and  concerning 
him,  in  his  said  trade  and  occupation,  this  false,  infamous  dream, 
thereby  greatly  injuring  him  in  his  lawful  calling,  bringing  him  into 
great  reproach  and  scandal,  and  causing  him  great  disturbance  and 
anxiety  of  mind  ! 

Believe  me,  gentlemen,  when  I  say,  that  I  have  not  been  reading 


from  a  dream,  but  from  the  plaintiff's  writ;  and  that  I  have  given 
.YOU  scarcely  a  tithe  of  those  'allegations  of  a  similar  character  with 
which  it  abounds !  Surely,  if  a  twentieth  part  of  this  be  true,  these 
defendants  should  expect  no  mercy  from  you.  But,  Divine  inspira- 
tion need  hardly  have  told  us,  that  i(  a  man  seemeth  right  in  his 
cause,  but  his  neighbor  coineth  and  searcheth  him."  Let  us  exam* 
ine  this  catalogue  of  grievances. 

Have  the  defendants,  by  this  publication,  injured  the  plaintiff's 
wide  arid  profitable  business  ?  There  is  not  a  shred  of  proof  to  sup- 
port the  charge.  But,  suppose  it  be  true.  The  defendants  are  en- 
titled to  the  gratitude  of  this  man  for  circumscribing,  for  utterly 
destroying  a  business  which  was  ruinous  to  him,  to  his  customers,  to 
the  community  in  which  he  dwelt.  For  every  glass  of  liquor  he 
sold,  he  was  liable  to  indictment,  to  fine,  to  imprisonment.  If  he 
had  his  deserts,  where  would  he  be  now  ?  All  his  companions  in 
this  diabolical  trade  could  scarcely  furnish  money  enough  to  pay  the 

debt  he  owes  the  Commonwealth  for  violating  its  laws.     And  he  is 

» 

here  asking  those  laws  to  give  him  money  !  They  owe  him  nothing 
but  impoverishment  and  ruin.  Were  his  life  stretched  out  to  the 
length  of  Methuselah's,  it  would  hardly  suffice  to  serve  out  the  im- 
prisonment the  law  would  inflict  upon  him.  And  he  dares  to  come 
into  a  Court  of  Justice  and  ask  for  money  ! 

Was  he  diligent  in  trade  ?  Aye,  diligent  in  making  paupers,  in 
jobbing  the  poor  of  bread,  in  instigating  men  to  commit  crimes,  in 
crowding  our  alms-houses,  our  jails,  our  penitentiaries,  our  insane 
asylums,  our  grave-yards,  with  the  plundered,  maddened  and  mur- 
dered victims  of  his  vocation.  And  our  publication  has  made  him 
dless  diligent,  more  languid  in  this  his  trade  :  for  which  he  asks  you 
to  put  your  hands  in  our  pockets  and  get  money  for  him. 

He  says  we  have  deprived  him  of  his  customers.  Where  is  the 
proof?  He  has  offered  none.  True,  we  have  showolhat  two  of  his 
.constant  customers  trade  no  more  with  him.  Kenny,  who  died  of 
delirium  tremens  almost  at  his  threshold,  will  never  stand  at  his 
counter  again.  Barton,  who  went  from  his  shop  to  die  in  a  mad- 
house, will  trade  no  more  with  him.  How  much  money  will  you 
give  him  for  the  loss  of  these  customers  ? 

And,  was  it  this  Dream  which  brought  him  into  scandal  and  re- 
proach among  the  good  and  worthy  citizens  of  Taunton  ?  No,  it 
was  the  reality,  not  the  dream  !  It  was  not  this  publication,  but  his 
occupation,  which  made  him  infamous.  And,  in  the  name  and  be- 
half of  every  good  and  honest  citizen  in  Taunton,  I  indignantly  de- 
ny, that  by  his  business,  he  was  obtaining  among  them  a  just  prefer- 
ment and  good  estimation.  I  repel  the  foul  calumny,  and  tell  him 


46 

that  it  is  through  their  long  suffering  and  forbearance,  that  the  doors 
of  his  pest-house  were  not  forcibly  closed  and  he  driven  from  the 
town  in  disgrace. 

And  did  our  dream  cause  him  great  disturbance  and  anxiety  of 
mind?  It  was  hicrh  time  that  something  had  filled  him  with  anxious 

&  o 

thoughts.  The  kindly  suasion  of  his  temperate  neighbors,  the 
tears  of  the  orphans  he  had  made,  the  beseechings  of  the  widows  he 
had  clothed  in  weeds,  the  curses  of  the  infuriated  Barton,  the  terri- 
ble agony  and  frightful  death  of  Kenny — all  these  had  not  moved 
him.  The  quarrels  which  he  daily  instigated,  the  blasphemies  which 
continually  rung  in  his  ears,  the  slow  but  sure  work  of  death  which 
he  saw  going  on  around  him — all  these  had  not  moved  him.  The 
law,  at  long  intervals,  waking  from  its  torpor,  visited  him  with  its 
retributions.  Still  he  went  on.  diligent  in  his  vocation,  plundering, 
torturing,  poisoning,  adding  fresh  fuel  to  consuming  fire,  without 
feeling  one  remorseless  pang,  one  anxious  thought.  By  all  that  is 
precious  on  earth  and  sacred  in  heaven,  if  these  defendants  have  been 
able  to  penetrate  the  seat  of  feeling  in  the  bosom  of  this  indescriba- 
ble wretch,  they  are  entitled  to  the  applause  of  men  and  the  favor  of 
God! 

But,  says  this  writ — and  it  is  a  rare  production — William  Wilbar 
was  a  true,  honest,  just  and  faithful  citizen  of  this  Commonwealth, 
pursuing  his  lawful  calling!  Gentlemen,  this  is  too  bad!  First 
comes  Williams  with  his  allegory,  and  says  that  Wilbar  is  the  devil's 
agent.  Then  comes  the  counsel  with  his  allegory,  and  says  he  is  a 
faithful  citizen,  pursuing  a  lawful  calling.  There  was  one  man  on 
earth  from  whom  even  William  Wilbar  might  rightfully  expect  sym- 
pathy— his  retained  and  feed  counsel.  And  though  the  hand  of  ev- 
ery other  man  should  be  turned  against  him,  his  arm  should  be 
stretched  out  in  his  defence.  And  now,  to  be  taunted  by  him,  in 
open  court,  with  pursuing  a  lawful  calling,  is  heaping  insult  upon  in- 
jury. Why,  it  is  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
which  declares  that  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  shall  not  be  in- 
flicted ! 

But,  gentlemen,  the  plaintiff  is  here  after  money.  What  injuries 
have  we  inflicted  upon  him  as  a  rumseller  1  What  good  deeds  has 
he  done  in  that  vocation,  which  entitle  him  to  take  money  out  of  our 
purse  ?  He  has  long  enjoyed  special  privileges  ;  and  is  he  not  con- 
tent with  those  ?  Unlike  you  and  I,  he  can  inflict  great  injuries 
upon  the  community  with  impunity.  By  his  business,  he  can  com- 
mit assaults  and  robberies ;  he  can  make  paupers  and  felons,  and  not 
be  held  responsible  therefor.  He  can  make  rich  men  poor,  wise  men 
fools,  sober  men  crazy,  virtuous  men  felons,  without  let  or  hindrance. 


47 

it"  you  and  I  call  a  man  a  bankrupt,  or  a  madman*  or  a  thiefy  or  a 
robber,  we  must  respond  in  damages  in  an  action  of  slander.  But 
he  can  make  men  bankrupts*  madmen,  thieves  and  robbers,  aye,  and 
by  diligence  in  trade  can  kill  them,  and  lo,  if  you  and  I  say  so  and 
print  it,  he  can  be  the  plaintiff  in  a  libel  suit,  and  we  must  defend 
ourselves  as  we  can.  So,  this  man  can  levy  taxes  on  the  communi- 
ty, and  make  the  community  pay  them  too.  The  rum-pauper  tax  of 
this  State,  is  about  §300,000  annually.  The  rum-criminal  tax,  is 
some  $10,000  or  $15,000  annually.  This  tax  is  levied  by  William 
Wilbar  and  the  like  of  him.  And  we  pay  it.  But,  if  the  Legisla- 
ture wish  to  lay  an  annual  tax  of  $70,000,  to  carry  on  the  govern- 
ment, the  whole  State  is  up  in  arms  from  Berkshire  to  Barnstable. — 
And  yet,  this  same  people  bear  these  rum-taxes  with  a  quiescent  hu- 
mility that  would  do  honor  to  a  starved  and  scourged  donkey.  So, 
if  this  plaintiff,  for  the  sake  of  gain,  sells  worthless  or  poisonous 
articles,  he  can  take  money  therefor,  while  for  doing  the  same 
thing,  the  provision  dealer  is  indicted  and  punished.  So,  if 
this  plaintiff,  for  gain,  infuriates  his  customers  with  rum,  knowing- 
ly and  wilfully,  and  they  commit  batteries,  larcenies  and  murders, 
he,  unlike  other  accessories,  escapes,  while  the  law  inflicts  its  ven- 
geance upon  the  poor  dupe  of  his  trade  and  occupation,  letting  the 
principal  go  and  punishing  the  agent — yea,  it  may  be,  permitting  the 
seducer  to  sit  upon  the  jury  which  condemns  his  victim, 

And  now,  gentlemen,  William  Wilbar  has  participated  largely  in? 
the  enjoyment  of  these  special  privileges.  And  not  content  with  the 
advantages  which  these  monopolies  confer  upon  him  in  his  trade  and 
occupation,  he  has  the  modesty  to  ask  for  more.  He  wants  you  to 
help  him  to  get  money.  He  has  become  so  accustomed  to  living  by 
plunder  without  law,  that  he  has  grown  bold  and  hopes  to  plunder  by 
aid  of  the  law. 

And  for  what  acts  of  his  rum-selling  life  does  he  ask  you  to  give 
him  money  ?  Let  him  present  us  with  his  bill  of  particulars.  Let 
him  make  out  his  account  current  with  the  defendants,  the  commu- 
nity and  the  law.  I  ask  for  the  items.  How  much  will  you  give  him 
for  the  disease  he  has  instilled  into  the  bodies  of  his  customers,  by 
his  diligence  in  trade  ?  How  much  for  reducing  them  to  beggary  f 
How  much  for  palsying  their  limbs,  blighting  their  minds,  ruining 
their  souls?  How  much  for  breakincr  the  hearts  of  their  widowed' 

o 

wives,  and  sending  their  starved  children  to  the  alms-house  7  How 
much  for  destroying  Kenny  and  Barton-  7  How  ftmch  for  under^ 
mining  the  foundations  of  social  order,  trampling  on  the  laws,  and 
contributing  all  in  his  power  to  swell  the  tide  of  intemperance  which 
pours  over  the  land,  blasting  everywhere,  cursing  everything  ?  Be-- 


48 

fore  I  consent  that  my  clients  pay  him  one  farthing,  I  demand  lift 
bill  of  particulars  "  for  work  and  labor  done,  and  materials  for  the 
same  provided." 

But,  gentlemen,  if  money  must  be  forth-coming  for  this  plaintiff, 
6f  whom  will  you  exact  it?  Surely,  you  will  not  go  to  the  poof 
widow  of  Barton  and  ask  her  to  sell  her  weeds  to  raise  money  for 
the  destroyer  of  her  husband.  You  will  not  do  that.  Will  you  go 
to  the  penniless  heirs  of  Kenny,  whom  Wilbar  robbed  of  a  father/ 
and  ask  them  to  take  the  bread  from  their  mouths  and  give  it  to  him  '{ 
You  will  not  do  that.  Will  you  go  to  the  poor-houses  and  jails,  and 
work-houses,  arid  insane  asylums,  and  penitentiaries,  and  search  out 
those  whom  his  trade  has  sent  thither,  and  ask  them  to  contribute 
money  to  the  wretch  who  has  ruined  them  ?  You  will  not  do  that. 
Will  you  go  to  the  grave-yards,  to  which  his  trade  and  occupation 
sent  their  annual  contributions,  arid  disentomb  the  dead,  and  sell 
their  skeletons  to  the  anatomist,  to  raise  money  for  the  keeper  of  a 
house  of  human  slaughter  ?  You  will  not  do  that.  Passing  by  all 
these,  will  you  come  to  the  law-abiding,  generous-hearted,  gallant 
young  philanthropists  now  at  your  bar,  who,  in  the  discharge  of  a 
high  civil  and  moral  duty  which  they  owed  to  socieiy  in  sustaining 
the  supremacy  of  the  laws  and  restraining  immorality  arid  alleviating 
human  misery,  painted  with  a  bold  pencil  this  monster  and  his  den, 
and  held  the  picture  up  to  public  gaze,  that  all  men  might  know  him 
and  abhor  him  and  shun  him — will  you  come  to  them  and  exact  mon- 
ey and  give  it  to  this  vile  wretch  ?  No  !  You  WI£L  NOT  DO  THAT  ! 

Let  me  remind  you,  Gentlemen  of  the  Jury,  that  the  case  of  Wil- 
bar vs.  Williams,  Hack  &,  Bradbury,  is  not  all  which  will  be  invol- 
ved in  the  verdict  you  may  render. 

Public  virtue,  sound  morality,  the  welfare  of  society,  are  on  trial, 
and  anxiously  await  your  decision.  Pursued,  overtaken,  outraged, 
these  precious  interests  flee  to  you  for  succor  and  protection.  Let 
the  halls  of  Justice  be  their  inviolablo  asylum.  Let  them  here  find 
their  home  and  their  friends. 

The  cause  of  sobriety  is  on  trial.  Intemperance,  the  pestilence 
which  walketh  in  darkness  and  the  destruction  which  wasteth  at  noon 
day,  covers  the  land  with  sadness  and  shame,  with  sin  and  sorrow. 
Shall  honest,  generous,  well  directed  efforts  to  stay  its  march,  be  vis- 
ited with  punishment,  while  those  who  minister  to  its  virulence  go 
unwhipt  of  justice?  Then  has  judgment  fled  to  brutish  beasts  and 
men  have  lost  their  reason. 

The  supremacy  of  the  laws,  the  authority  and  perpetuity  of  civil 
government,  are  on  trial.  I  cannot  but  regard  these  constant  and 
unpunished  violations  of  our  license  laws,  as  tending  to  Undermine  ^ 


49 

the  very  basis  on  which  our  free  institutions  rest.  These  violations 
are  injurious  to  the  cause  of  sobriety.  Our  fathers  erected  these 
barriers  all  around  our  borders,  to  beat  back  the  waves  of  intemper- 
ance, so  that  they  might  not  overwhelm  our  good  old  Commonwealth. 
And,  the  advancing  knowledge  and  enlarged  experience  may  have 
disclosed  many  defects  in  them,  yet  the  safety  of  the  State  requires 
that  they  be  firmly  upheld  till  stronger  and  higher  barriers  are  erect- 
ed in  their  stead.  This  plaintiff  has  combined  with  the  thousands 
of  rumsellers  in  Massachusetts,  to  prostrate  these  walls  of  defence, 
and  let  in  the  surges  of  drunkenness  to  sweep  unrestrained  through 
the  land.  He  is  a  bad  citizen,  the  enemy  of  his  country,  guilty  of 
moral  treason.  An  importer  of  famine  and  pestilence  would  be  less 
guilty.  The  man  who  should  give  succor  to  our  foes  in  war,  or  open 
the  gates  of  our  citadel  to  hostile  armies,  would  not  more  deserve 
the  name  of  traitor.  But,  I  regard  these  repeated  violations  of  our 
laws  as  still  more  injurious,  because  of  the  dangerous  tendency  of 
their  example.  Beware  of  bad  precedents.  Obsta  principiis.  If 
the  license  laws  may  be  broken  with  impunity,  so  may  any  other  and 
all  other  laws  on  our  statute  book.  Witnessing  the  indifference 
which  so  lamentably  prevails  in  regard  to  the  resistance  of  the  laws 
by  the  rumseller,  other  classes  of  men  will  be  emboldened  to  set  other 
portions  of  our  code  at  defiance,  till  pillar  after  pillar  of  the  social 
edifice  falls,  and  the  whole  becomes  amass  of  shapeless  ruins.  Said 
the  great  Lord  Chatham,  when  resisting  the  illegal  encroachments 
of  the  British  Crown  upon  the  liberties  of  the  people,  "  this  I  know ; 
where  law  ceases,  there  despotism  begins."  Let  us  then,  gentlemen, 
regardless  of  our  opinions  on  the  subject  of  temperance,  band  to- 
gether, hand  in  hand,  to  save  our  civil  institutions  from  prostration. 
Impelled  by  the  instincts  of  self-preservation,  let  us  stand  by  the  law 
and  vindicate  its  supremacy.  But,  higher  motives  than  this  should 
influence  you.  The  jury-box  is  the  guardian  of  social  order.  Prove 
not  recreant  to  your  trust  here*  Teach  this  plaintiff  that  for  him 
and  his  clan,  you  have  nothing  to  give  but  retribution  and  infamy. 

The  liberty  of  the  press  is  on  trial,  and  waits  for  your  verdict. — 
Of  all  the  instrumentalities  for  good  or  for  evil,  which  exist  among 
a  free  people,  the  liberty  of  the  press  should  be  watched  and  guarded 
with  the  most  jealous  care.  Often  has  it  been  the  last  resort  of  free- 
dom in  its  conflict  with  tyranny.  Said  Milton,  the  republican  of 
Charles  the  First's  time,  «'  give  me  the  liberty  to  know,  to  argue  and 
to  publish  freely,  above  all  other  liberties."  Said  the  illustrious 
Chatham,  "  Let  there  be  a  weak  Prince,  a  wicked  Minister,  and  a 
corrupt  Parliament,  and  give  me  a  Free  Press,  and  the  Constitution 
is  safe — the  liberties  of  the  people  are  secure."  The  brightest  jew- 


50 

el  in  the  professional  diadem  of  the  great  English  advocate  Erskirie, 
was  his  successful  resistance  to  the  rule  of  law  expounded  by  the 
judges,  that  in  criminal  prosecutions  for  libel,  the  proof  of  the  truth 
of  the  writing  and  of  the  good  motives  which  caused  its  publication, 
were  not  a  complete  defence.  By  the  aid  of  Charles  James  Fox, 
the  great  Commoner,  this  once  discarded  rule  became  the  law  of  the 
British  Empire ;  and  now  the  people  of  England  may  breathe  their 
discontents,  may  thunder  their  denunciations  even,  in  the  very  ear 
of  Majesty.  Justly  prizing  this  great  right,  our  ancestors  provided 
guarantees  for  its  protection  in  the  organic  law  of  the  Republic  and 
of  this  Commonwealth.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  pro- 
vides, that  "  Congress  shall  pass  no  law  abridging  the  liberty  of  the 
press.  The  Constitution  of  Massachusetts  declares,  that  (i  the  lib- 
erty of  the  press  is  essential  to  the  security  of  freedom  in  a  State ; 
it  ought  not,  therefore,  to  be  restrained  in  this  Commonwealth." — 
These  defendants  are  the  editor  and  the  printers  of  a  public  news- 
paper. Jefferson  denominates  the  men  of  this  class,  sentinels  on  the 
watch-towers  of  freedom.  In  publishing  the  article  for  which  they 
are  now  arraigned,  were  they  true  or  false  to  their  trust  1  The  plain- 
tiff was  a  traitor  to  his  country  and  his  kind.  Human  and  Divine 
law  were  at  war  with  his  vocation.  Virtue,  humanity,  law  and  re- 
ligion had  appealed  to  him  to  abandon  that  vocation.  They  had  ap- 
pealed in  vain.  These  defendants,  deeply  moved  at  his  crimes,  and 
regarding  their  high  mission  as  conductors  of  a  free  press,  gave  ut- 
terance to  the  indignant  voice  of  an  outraged  and  long  suffering 
public  sentiment.  And  by  Heaven,  if  they  have  been  able  to  arrest 
or  impede  him  in  his  guilty  career,  they  are  entitled  to  his  thanks 
and  yeur  verdict.  Yea,  I  take  stronger  ground.  Such  are  the  re- 
lations which  this  plaintiff  sustains  to  the  laws  of  this  Common- 
wealth and  to  society  at  large,  that  if  this  publication  were  the  most 
scandalous  ever  uttered,  and  these  defendants  the  most  despicable 
wretches  that  ever  defiled  the  earth,  William  Wilbar  is  not  the  man 
to  come  into  a  Court  of  Justice  and  say  so. 

But,  gentlemen,  I  have  detained  you  too  long.  From  all  the  tes- 
timony in  this  case,  the  plaintiff  must  be  regarded  as  the  keeper  of 
a  dram-shop  of  more  than  an  average  degree  of  infamy,  and  the  por- 
trait shadowed  forth  in  this  Dream  as  only  a  faithful  likeness  of  the 
man  and  his  occupation.  If  the  features  be  Satanic — if  the  general 
impress  and  mein  be  fiendish — if  every  virtuous  eye  which  scans  it, 
kindles  with  indignation — if  its  exhibition  has  sunk  the  original  so 
low  in  public  esteem  that  even  contempt  scorns  to  follow  him — the 
fault  is  his  own — not  the  limners.  In  the  discharge  of  a  duty  which 
they  owed  to  God  and  man,  they  have  sketched  him  faithfully,  notb- 


51 

ing  extenuating,  nor  setting  down  aught  in  malice.  By  your  verdict, 
then,  stamp  this  Dream,  with  all  its  blistering  epithets,  upon  the  au- 
dacious forehead  of  William  Wilbar.  Forget  not,  that  in  reaching 
your  bar  he  has  trodden  that  law  in  the  dust  which  gives  protection 
to  your  rights  and  dignity  to  your  office.  Pie  has  poured  contempt 
on  its  majesty,  scorned  its  precepts,  defied  its  penalties,  and  despised 
its  ministers.  So  far  from  shielding  him  by  your  verdict,  drive  him 
hence  with  indignation,  and  let  him  thank  Heaven  that  he  was  not 
scathed  by  its  vengeance  when  he  dared  to  invade  the  Temple  of 
Justice  on  such  an  errand  as  that  which  brought  him  here. 


We  intended  to  insert  an  abstract  of  Mr.  Coffin's  argument  for  the  plaintiff, 
but  we  find  upon  looking  at  our  notes  that  they  are  too  imperfect  for  publica- 
tion. We  did  not  expect,  at  the  time  of  the  trial,  to  issue  this  pamphlet. 

The  strength  of  Mr.  Coffin's  argument  was  upon  the  question  of  damages. 
He  was  at  times  eloquent  upon  this  point;  indeed,  his  whole  speech,  though 
somewhat  below  his  usual  efforts,  was  a  good  one  for  his  client.  We  expected 
a  severe  castigation,  but  we  were  in  this  disappointed.  The  following  was 
the  only  remark  which  savored  of  insult :  ct  Who  is  this  Ben.  Williams,  the 
author  of  this  blasphemous  mildew,  who  has  dragged  my  client  from  modest 
privacy  9  " 

This  document  is  intended  for  the  benefit  of  the  temperance  cause;  this, 
therefore,  will  be  a  sufficient  apology  for  the  non-publication  of  Mr.  Coffin's  ar- 
gument, although  in  the  opinion  of  gentlemen  versed  in  legal  matters,  it  will 
seem  incomplete.  ED.  DSW  DROP. 


JUDGE  IIUBBARD'S  CHARGE. 


[It  was  our  intention  to  give  a  complete  report  of  the  very  able  and  impar- 
tial Charge  to  the  Jury,  of  the  learned  and  upright  Judge,  who  presided  at  the 
trial  of  this  cause  ;  but,  circumstances  beyond  our  control  prevent  our  giving 
more  than  a  summary  of  its  leading  points.] 


His  Honor  remarked  to  the  Jury,  that  we  live  under  a  government 
of  laws,  designed  to  protect  every  man's  life,  liberty,  and  reputation. 
The  plaintiff  avers  in  his  writ  that  he  is  a  good,  worthy  and  peace- 
able citizen  of  this  Commonwealth,  and,  at  the  time  of  the  publica- 
tion complained  of,  was  pursuing  an  honest  and  respectable  business 
as  a  grocer,  in  the  town  of  Taunton.  That  the  defendants,  envying 
his  good  name  and  reputation,  and  seeking  to  bring  him  into  dis- 
grace, have  published  of  and  concerning  him,  a  false,  scandalous 
and  malicious  libel,  by  reason  of  which  he  has  been  injured  in  his 
reputation  and  business.  And,  to  repair  these  injuries,  he  has 
brought  this  action. 

His  Honor  then  gave  a  lucid  history  of  the  law  of  libel,  and  point- 
ed out  the  modifications  which  it  had  undergone,  especially  in  this 
State,  during  the  last  30  or  40  years.  He  defined  a  libel  to  be,  "  a 
malicious  publication,  expressed  either  in  printing  or  writing,  or  by 
signs  and  pictures,  tending  either  to  blacken  the  memory  of  one 
dead,  or  the  reputation  of  one  who  is  alive,  and  expose  him  to  pub- 
lic hatred,  contempt  and  ridicule." 

He  then  pointed  out  some  of  the  changes  which  had  taken  place 
in  the  grounds  of  defence  for  publishing  libels,  and  drew  the  dis- 
tinction in  this  respect  between  civil  actions  for  damages  and  crimi- 
nal prosecutions  by  indictment. 

Formerly,  it  was  held  as  settled  law,  that  ft  the  greater  the  truth, 
the  greater  the  libel  •"  and  the  truth  of  the  charges  contained  in  the 
publication,  was  no  justification  for  their  utterance,  nor  would  the 
proof  of  their  truth  on  the  trial  be  allowed.  This  was  alike  the  rule 
both  in  civil  and  criminal  cases.  In  more  recent  times,  these  prin- 
ciples, and  the  practice  under  them,  had  been  essentially  changed. 
In  1826,  the  Legislature  of  this  State  passed  a  declaratory  act  in  re- 
gard to  what  should  constitute  a  sufficient  defence  in  a  criminal 


53 

prosecution  for  a  libel.  The  provisions  of  the  act  of  1826,  were 
substantially  incorporated  into  the  Revised  Statutes.  In  chapter 
133,  section  6,  the  law  is  thus  laid  down : 

."  In  every  prosecution  /or  writing1  or  for  publishing  a  libel,  the  defendant  may 
give  in  evidence,  in  his  defence  upon  the  trial,  the  truth  of  the  matter  con- 
tained in  the  publication,  charged  as  libellous;  provided,  that  such  evidence 
shall  not  be  deemed  a  sufficient  justification,  unless  it  shall  be  further  made  to 
appear  on  the  trial,  that  the  matter  charged  to  be  libellous,  was  published  from 
good  motives  and  for  justifiable  ends.'5 

For  the  purposes  of  this  trial,  our  business  is  confined  to  those 
,niles  which  govern  civil  actions  for  damages.  As  contended  by  the 
counsel  for  the  defendants,  and  admitted  by  the  counsel  for  the  plain- 
tiff, it  is  now  well  settled,  that  in  civil  actions  for  Iibel3  the  proving 
of  the  truth  of  the  publication,  at  the  trial,  constitutes  a  complete 
defence  for  making  it ;  and  this,  too,  without  regard  to  the  motives 
which  actuated  the  defendants  in  making  the  charges,  or  the  injury 
which  the  plaintiff  may  have  sustained  thereby.  If  he  has  suffered 
great  damage  in  consequence  of  the  publication,  and  if  the  motives 
which  influenced  the  publisher  in  thus  holding  him  up  to  the  world 
were  bad,  still,  if  the  defendant  proves  his  charges  to  be  true,  the 
plaintiff  has  no  remedy  by  civil  suit,  and  his  assailant  stands  acquit- 
ted in  the  eye  of  the  law.  Nor  does  the  law  in  this  respect  depart 
from  sound  principles  of  justice.  If  a  man  has  been  guilty  of 
crimes,  or  if  he  pursues  an  iniquitous  business,  or  if  his  character 
be  infamous,  it  is  not  for  him  to  come  to  the  law  for  damages  be- 
cause his  character  and  his  calling  have  been  described  before  the 
public  in  their  true  colors.  True,  if  the  faults  or  the  crimes  of  a 
bad  man  are  held  up  to  the  world  for  no  good  purpose,  for  no  justi- 
fiable ends,  the  Commonwealth  may  interfere  by  indicting  and  pun- 
ishing the  publisher.  But,  the  law  will  not  allow  a  bad  plaintiff  to 
profit  by  his  own  iniquities,  by  recovering  damages  from  a  bad  de- 
fendant to  be  put  in  his  own  pocket. 

In  the  outset  of  this  case,  then,  there  are  three  important  questions 
for  the  Jury  to  settle.  1. — Is  this  publication — the  Dream — a  libel  ? 
2. — Was  it  published  of  and  concerning  the  plaintiff?  3. — Was  it 
published  by  all  the  defendants  1 

As  to  the  first  point,  probably  the  Jury,  in  view  of  the  definition 
of  a  libel  which  the  Court  has  given,  will  have  no  difficulty  in  arriv- 
ing at  the  conclusion  that  this  Dream  is  a  libellous  publication,  pro- 
vided it  be  false,  and  therefore  malicious.  This  is  admitted  by  the 
defendants'  counsel. 

As  to  the  second  point,  the  Jury  will  examine  all  the  evidence  in- 
troduced on  both  sides,  and  say,  whether  the  publication  refers  to 


54 

the  plaintiff.  Here, the  burden  of  the  proof  is  on  the  plaintiff.  He 
must  satisfy  you  that  he  is  the  person  specially  designated  in  this 
Dream,  as  the  keeper  of  "  that  house  of  human  slaughter."  Wit- 
nesses have  testified  that  on  reading  it,  they  thought  it  referred  to 
the  plaintiff*.  They  give  you  various  reasons  for  this  belief.  Some 
give  as  the  reason,  that  he  kept  a  large  liquor  store  in  «'  Rum  Hol- 
low " — that  he  was  the  largest  liquor  dealer  in  that  notorious  place 
— that  he  generally  had  a  large  number  of  drinking  customers  in 
and  around  his  shop — that  there  were  signs  up  at  the  door  with  the 
words  Rum,  Brandy,  Gin,  &,c.,  upon  them,  &c.  Some  give  as  the 
reason,  that  an  old  man  with  spectacles  (as  described  in  the  Dream) 
was  a  clerk  in  this  store ;  and  others  believed  it  referred  to  the  plain- 
tiff, because  it  appeared  to  them  to  be  a  faithful  and  apt  picture,  in 
figurative  language,  of  his  establishment.  It  is  for  the  Jury  to  say, 
not  merely  from  the  belief  of  these  witnesses,  but  from  reading  the 
Dream  and  comparing  it  with  all  the  evidence  as  to  the  character 
and  description  of  the  plaintiff's  shop  and  the  kind  of  business  he 
there  carried  on,  whether  he  is  the  person  to  whom  it  referred. 

As  to  the  third  point,  it  is  not  contended  that  Mr.  Williams,  the 
editor  and  publisher,  did  not  publish,  in  legal  contemplation,  the  al- 
leged libel.  But,  it  is  contended,  that  Hack  &  Bradbury,  the  other 
defendants,  being  merely  job  printers ;  having  no  pecuniary  interest 
in  the  Dew  Drop ;  not  selling,  or  mailing,  or  giving  away  the  paper  ; 
but,  merely  printing  it  in  the  way  of  their  regular  business,  as  they 
did  other  jobs;  and,  when  the  entire  weekly  edition  was  struck  off, 
handing  it  over  all  at  one  time  to  Williams,  or  permitting  him  to 
come  and  take  it  away — this  is  not  a  publication  by  them.  But,  the 
Court  lay  down  the  law  to  be,  that  if  Hack  &,  Bradbury  printed  the 
newspaper  for  Williams,  though  merely  as  job-work,  knowing  that  he 
was  intending  afterwards  to  publish  it ;  and  if  they  handed  it  over  to 
him,  or  permitted  him  to  take  it,  knowing  that  he  intended  to  publish 
it,  and  he  afterwards  did  publish  it,  this  was,  in  contemplation  of 
law,  a  publication  by  them. 

If  the  Jury  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  this  is  a  libel,  and  that  it 
was  published  of  the  plaintiff  by  all  the  defendants,  then  another  im- 
portant question  arises,  namely, — Have  the  defendants  justified  the 
publication  by  proving  the  libel  to  be  true  ? 

Here  his  Honor  examined  the  specifications  of  defence  filed  by 
the  defendants,  and  the  objections  of  the  plaintiff  to  their  sufficien- 
cy. By  the  general  issue,  the  defendants  deny  that  they  published 
the  article,  and  at  the  same  time  they  say,  that  if  they  did  publish 
it,  it  is  true  according  to  its  real  and  fair  construction.  They  also 
state  that  it  is  an  allegory — a  figurative  piece  of  writing,  and  should 


55 

be  so  interpreted.  That  it  was  written  solely  to  describe  the  charac- 
ter and  effects  of  the  excessive  use  of  intoxicating  liquors  in  tip- 
pling-houses  and  drarn-shops,  and  of  the  traffic  in  such  liquors  in 
such  establishments.  That  if  the  plaintiff  really  kept  such  an 
establishment,  this  dream  was  a  justifiable  criticism  upon  his  voca- 
tion. They  also  state,  that  he  was  the  keeper  of  such  a  shop,  in  vi- 
olation of  law,  he  not  being  thereto  duly  licensed.  The  Court  hold 
the  law  to  be,  that  however  insufficient  under  the  old  system  of  spec- 
ial pleading,  yet  that  system  having  been  abolished  in  this  State,  and 
a  more  liberal,  general  and  perhaps  loose  mode  adopted  in  its  stead, 
these  specifications  of  defence  are  sufficient  to  entitle  the  defendants 
on  this  trial  to  introduce  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  publication, 
especially  as  it  appears  that  the  plaintiff  has  not  been  misled  and 
is  not  surprised  thereby. 

Then,  is  this  publication  true  ?  The  Jury  will  inquire  into  its 
character.  Is  it  a  figurative  piece  of  writing — is  it  an  allegory  ? — 
Look  at  its  caption — "  A  Dream."  Does  it  sustain  its  allegorical 
character  throughout  ?  Is  it,  in  its  general  scope,  or  in  any  of  its 
details,  a  literal  description  of  scenes  which  transpired  under  the  wri- 
ter's eye?  These  questions  are  for  the  Jury  to  determine.  The  de- 
fendants allege  that  it  is  a  fair  description  of  a  tippling-house  and 
dram-shop.  Is  this  so?  And  if  it  be,  then  did  the  plaintiff  keep 
such  an  establishment,  and  is  this  Dream  a  fair  description  of  that 
establishment  ?  The  leading  question,  the  very  essence  of  the  in- 
quiry, in  looking  at  this  Dream  is,  is  it  a  fair  description  of  a  dram- 
shop, and  did  William  Wilbar  keep  such  a  shop  ?  Does  the  article 
purport  to  be  anything  else — does  the  proof  justify  its  application  to 
the  plaintiff?  As  is  contended  by  the  defendants'  counsel,  an  alle- 
gory has  a  meaning  though  the  meaning  is  not  a  literal  one.  Un- 
doubtedly such  a  piece  of  writing  must  have  some  features  of  truth 
about  it,  or  it  would  have  no  point. 

Look,  then,  at  the  plaintiff's  shop  and  the  kind  of  business  he 
carried  on  there.  It  is  urged  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  that  he 
kept  a  common  grocery.  But  was  that  his  principal  business  ?  Had 
he  been  a  grocer  only,  he  might  well  complain  that  this  publication 
had  injured  him  in  his  business.  But,  he  kept  his  grocery  in  a  dis- 
graceful place,  called  "  Rum  Hollow."  Did  he  sell  large  quantities 
of  intoxicating  liquors  ?  Did  he,  in  fact,  keep  a  low,  disorderly  tip- 
pling-house and  dram-shop,  resorted  to  by  great  numbers  of  intem- 
perate men  to  gratify  their  appetite  for  strong  drink  ?  The  plaintiff's 
witnesses  state  that  a  good  deal  of  rum  was  sold  there.  Newcomb 
swears  to  this  effect.  Leonard  swears  that  liquor  was  frequently 
drank  there,  and  that  there  were  a  great  many  casks,  barrels  and 


re 
00 

hogsheads  of  liquor  on  sale  there.  jfiltis  testified  that  the'  plaintiff 
sold  more  rum  than  any  other  man  in  "  Rum  Hollow,"  arid  he 
thought  the  Dream  was  a  fair  description  of  his  store.  This  is  the 
general  character  of  the  plaifttiff  Js  testimony  on  this  point.  This 
evidence  is  fully  supported  by  the  defendants'  witnesses.  Crocker 
describes  the  signs  at  the  door — Rum,  Brandy,  Gin,  &,c.  For  what 
purpose  were  these  signs  placed  there  ?  They  were  in  fact  an  invi- 
tation to  all  to  come  in  and  drink  these  liquors.  This  witness  swears 
that  there  were  frequently  scores  of  drinking  men  in  the  shop,  in  all 
stages  of  intoxication.  When  he  was  once  in  there  he  saw  men 

o 

standing  at  the  counter,  with  glasses  of  liquor  before  them.  He  has 
seen  drunken  men  pushed  out  of  there — has  heard  noises  and  quar- 
relling there,  both  during  the  day  time  and  in  the  night— has  seen 
scores  of  intemperate  men  around  the  doors,  in  various  degrees  of 
drunkenness.  It  is  for  the  Jury  to  say,  whether  this  was  a  tippling- 
house — the  haunt  of  the  drunkard.  Earl  described  the  screen 
which  stood  within  the  door.  For  what  purpose  was  this  screen 
placed  there  ?  Why  did  the  plaintiff  seek  to  screen  the  inside  of 
his  shop  from  public  view  1  The  Jury  must  judge.  This  witness 
testifies  that  he  has  seen  a  great  many  intemperate  men  going  in  and 
coming  out  of  this  shop,  in  all  the  stages  of  drunkenness.  That  a 
great  deal  of  low  company  was  in  and  around  there  constantly. — - 
That  he  has  frequently  seen  men  pushed  out  in  the  day  time  and  in 
the  night,  and  fall  down  dead  drunk.  That  this  was  often  the  case 
when  they  shut  up  at  night ;  and  he  has  picked  up  these  wretch- 
es, and  helped  them  to  a  shelter.  He  has  seen  fighting  and  knock- 
ing down  around  the  door,  and  has  heard  quarrelling  in  the  night 
which  has  called  him  up,  arid  has  heard  much  cursing  and  swearing 
in  and  about  the  establishment.  He  has  seen  persons  go  in  there  on 
the  Sabbath.  He  described  the  case  of  Kenny,  who  was  a  regular 
customer  of  the  plaintiff,  who  was  an  intemperate  man,  and  who 
went  home  from  his  shop  intoxicated,  and  in  a  day  or  two  died  in  a 
horrible  fit  of  delirium  tremens.  Tisdale,the  reformed  man,  swears 
that  he  has  frequently  bought  and  drank  liquor  there,  and  has  seen 
many  others  do  the  same.  He  has  seen  drunken  men  in  and  about 
the  shop.  He  has  seen  Barton  drink  there  frequently,  and  knows 
he  was  an  intemperate  man,  and  a  customer  of  the  plaintiff.  This 
is  the  man  who  had  the  delirium  tremens,  and  was  sent  to  the  Insane 
Asylum,  at  Worcester,  where  he  died.  Mrs.  Barton,  the  widow  of 
the  man  just  named,  described  the  habits  and  haunts  of  her  late  hus- 
band. He  was  a  hard  drinker,  and  bought  his  liquor  at  the  plain- 
tiff's. He  spent  all  his  money  there  for  rum.  He  had  a  fit  of  de- 
lirium tremens,  and  tried  to  murder  his  wife  and  children  with  an 


57 

axe,  while  in  one  of  these  fits.  He  went  to  the  poor-house,  and  then 
to  the  Asylum,  where  he  died.  Shattuck  testified  to  many  facts  sim- 
ilar to  those  sworn  to  by  Crocker  and  Earl.  Without  going  more 
into  detail,  it  is  for  the  Jury  to  say,  in  view  of  all  the  testimony, 
whether  the  plaintiff  kept  a  tippling-house  and  dram-shop,  and  wheth- 
er the  Dream  contains  a  faithful  description  of  his  establishment  ? 

His  Honor  then  examined  the  Dream  in  detail,  in  reference  to  the 
epithets  used,  and  commented  upon  some  of  its  passages  at  length. 
We  give  but  a  sketch  of  this  part  of  the  Charge. 

At  the  outset  of  this  Dream,  it  speaks  of  the  Devil  being  the  pre- 
siding genius  of  the  place.  We  cannot  believe  the  writer  meant  to 
state  that  the  Devil  was  literally  present  in  bodily  form.  Does  not 
this  go  far  to  stamp  the  whole  publication  as  a  figurative  piece  of 
writing  1  The  Dream  describes  the  marks  on  the  heads  of  the  casks 
and  barrels— such  as  "  Man-killer'4'  '«  Orphan  Maker,"  &c.  The 
defendants  allege  that  these  are  figurative  statements  of  the  effects 
produced  by  the  excessive  use  of  spirituous  liquors,  and  that  the 
plaintiff  kept  such  liquors  for  sale.  The  plaintiff,  by  his  inuendoes 
in  the  writ,  gives  a  very  different  interpretation  to  these  epithets, 
namely,  that  the  defendants  meant  to  charge  the  plaintiff  with  the 
commission  of  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  such  as  murder,  &c. 
It  is  for  the  Jury  to  decide  which  has  set  forth  the  true  meaning. — 
To  arrive  at  this  meaning,  let  the  Jury  look  at  the  whole  article — its 
evident  object — and  compare  those  passages  which  are  unquestiona- 
bly figurative,  with  those  which  the  plaintiff  alleges  are  literal. — 
Read  it  as  you  would  at  your  own  firesides.  No  other  rules  of  in- 
terpretation are  to  be  applied  to  it  in  a  Court  of  Justice,  which  you 
would  not  apply  to  it  on  your  farms  and  in  your  shops.  Have  we 
any  reason  to  suppose  the  writer  would  depart  from  his  general  line 
of  description,  by  intermixing  literal  with  figurative  passages.  The 
article  should  not  be  made,  unnecessarily  and  hastily,  to  contradict 
its  general  character  as  "  a  Dream,"  an  allegory.  Examine  it,  then, 
in  view  of  these  obvious  rules  of  interpretation. 

If  the  Jury  think  the  defendants  have  given  the  true  interpreta- 
tion, then  the  question  arises,  are  these  descriptions  true  ?  Is  rum  a 
man-killer?  Has  not  the  testimony  on  this  point  been  ample? — 
Does  not  its  excessive  use  shorten  human  life  by  producing  disease 
and  instigating  murder  ?  Is  it  properly  called  maniac  beverage  ? — 
Who  has  not  seen  men  crazy  with  rum  ?  Dr.  Jewett  has  told  us  it 
is  a  fruitful  source  of  insanity.  If  it  sends  parents  to  untimely 
graves,  is  it  not  an  orphan  maker  ?  Does  it  not  injure  and  destroy 
the  soul,  by  blighting  the  intellect,  leading  captive  the  will  and  hard- 
ening the  affections  ?  Rev.  Mr.  Curtis,  the  worthy  Chaplain  of  the 
8 


State  Prison,  has  described  to  us  its  destructive  effects  upon  the  mor- 
als of  man.  Is  it,  then,  a  soul  destroyer  1  Does  it  produce  the  de- 
lirium tremens,  that  awful  disease  which  destroyed  Kenny,  and  an- 
nually kills  its  thousands  ?  Doct.  Jewett  has  told  us  that  excessive 
drinking  is  the  cause,  and  the  sole  cause,  of  this  mania  a  potu, 
which  the  counsel  for  the  defendants  so  aptly  denominated,  in  Scrip- 
tural language,  "the  cup  of  trembling."  Then,  did  the  plaintiff 
sell  the  liquors  which  produce  these  awful  effects,  and  is  the  descrip- 
tion in  the  Dream,  in  this  respect,  true  ?  It  is  for  the  Jury  to  decide. 

The  Dream  states  that  signs  were  nailed  to  the  wall,  containing 
various  inscriptions.  It  is  in  evidence  that  there  were  signs  at  the 
door,  bearing  the  words  Rum,  Brandy,  Gin,  &c.  Do  these  liquors 
lead  to  the  results  stated  in  the  Dream,  and  is  this  part  of  it  a  fair 
statement  of  the  character  of  the  business  of  the  dram-seller?  Do 
these  liquors  instigate  to  murder  and  train  men  for  the  gallows  ?  Dr. 
Jewett  and  Rev.  Mr.  Curtis  have  both  stated  that  at  least  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  crimes  in  the  country,  murder  included,  are  caused 
by  drunkenness.  Does  not  our  common  observation  teach  us  the 
same  ?  These  witnesses  have  told  us  that  intemperance  is  one  of 
the  causes  of  suicide.  May  not  the  excessive  use  of  spirituous  li- 
quors, both  by  shortening  men's  lives,  and  by  leading  them  to  com- 
mit self-murder,  be  said  to  give  lessons  in  suicide  ?  And  was  the 
plaintiff  engaged  in  a  business  which  tends  to  such  consequences  1 
Was  he  pursuing  a  calling  which  leads  children  in  the  road  to  death  ? 
Might  his  business  be  properly  described  as  producing  death  to  the 
body,  the  morals,  the  souls  of  his  customers,  old  and  young  ?  The 
Jury  must  decide. 

His  Honor,  after  similar  comments  upon  other  parts  of  the  Dream, 
then  read  the  passage  which  describes  the  young  man  who  called  for 
a  glass  of  Lucifer's  Elixir,  and  on  drinking  it,  fell  down  dead  on  the 
floor,  and  had  his  pockets  rifled.  He  commented  at  some  length  on 
this  paragraph.  The  Jury  must  read  this  passage  in  view  of  the 
general  scope  and  character  of  the  whole  article.  Was  this  a  literal 
description  of  an  event  which  actually  transpired  in  the  plaintiff's 
shop  ?  Parts  of  it  were  obviously  figurative — such  as  the  Lucifer's 
Elixir,  the  presence  of  the  devil,  &c.  Was  it  the  fair  interpretation 
of  the  whole  passage  to  say,  that  the  writer  suddenly  changed  from 
the  figurative  to  the  literal — from  the  fancy  sketches  of  an  allegory 
to  the  sober  statement  of  facts?  Was  it  anything  more  than  a 
strongly  colored  picture  of  the  effects  of  excessive  drinking,  of 
beastly  drunkenness?  Is  it  true,  that  extreme  intoxication,  in  such 
young  men  as  are  here  described,  caused  death — death  of  the  reason, 
of  the  affections,  and  often  the  literal  death  of  the  body?  May  not 


men,  when  "  dead  drunk,"  be  said,  iu!  figurative  language,  to  have 
fallen  down  dead  1  Does  not  the  rumseller,  who  strips  his  poor  cus- 
tomers of  all  their  earnings,  rob  them,  figuratively  speaking?  And 
is  this  the  fair  interpretation  of  the  passage,  and  did  the  plaintiff 
pursue  such  a  business  ?  These  questions  are  for  the  decision  of 
the  Jury. 

To  this  passage,  the  plaintiff  has  appended  various  inuendoes, 
which  he  avers  set  forth  the  true  meaning  of  it.  He  says  the  de- 
fendants have  charged  him  with  poisonsng  his  customers,  knowingly 
and  wilfully,  whereby  they  died — with  committing  the  crimes  of 
murder,  and  robbing  the  dead,  &/c.  The  defendants  aver  that  the- 
passage  is  merely  a  metaphorical  description  of  the  effects  of  exces- 
sive drinking.  Which  is  right  ?  The  Court  charge  the  Jury  as 
matter  of  law,  that  the  plaintiff  is  bound  to  satisfy  them  that  his  in- 
uendoes set  forth  the  real  meaning  of  the  writer.  And,  if  he  fails 
to  convince  the  Jury  that  he  has  stated  the  real  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sage, he  has  so  far  failed  to  make  out  his  case. 

Then,  upon  the  whole  article — have  the  defendants  proved  it  to  be 
true,  according  to  its  fair  interpretation  1  Here  the  burden  of  proof 
is  upon  them.  If  they  have  failed,  you  must  find  a  verdict  for  the 
plaintiff.  If  they  have  succeeded,  they  are  entitled  to  an  acquittal. 

His  Honor  then  charged  the  Jury  upon  the  other  main  point  raised 
by  the  defendants'  counsel,  namely,  that  the  plaintiff,  being  engaged 
in  an  illegal  vocation,  could  not  maintain  an  action  for  a  libel  upon 
him  in  that  vocation.  The  authorities  brought  forward  by  the  de- 
fendants' counsel  fully  sustained  this  position.  The  Court  instruct 
the  Jury  to  inquire : 

1.  Was  the  plaintiff  engaged  in  an  illegal  vocation  1      Was  he 
selling  spirituous  liquors  without  being  duly  licensed  therefor  ?     Did 
he  keep  a  tippling-house  and  dram-shop,  in  violation  of  law? 

2.  Was  the  libel  published  of  him  solely  in  regard  to  his  agency 
in  that  business  ? 

3.  If  the  Jury  find  both  these  issues  in  the  affirmative,  then  the 
plaintiff  cannot  maintain  this  action ;  even  though  the  publication 
be  libellous,  and  the  defendants  have  failed  to  prove  it  to  be  true. 

But,  if  the  defendants  have  travelled  out  of  the  line  of  the  plain- 
tiff's vocation  as  a  rumseller,  and  have  attacked  him  in  other  res- 
pects, then  they  are  so  far  liable.  But,  if  the  publication  is  of  him 
solely  in  that  vocation,  and  that  vocation  is  illegal,  then  he  cannot 
come  to  the  law  and  ask  it  to  give  him  damages  for  what  is  pub- 
lished of  him  in  regard  to  a  business  in  which  he  transgresses  the 
law,  even  though  the  publication  be  false,  and  have  caused  damage  to 
the  plaintiff.  Courts  of  Justice  will  not  interfere  in  behalf  of  either 


60 

one  of  such  guilty  parties.  Yet,  while  this  is  true  of  civil  actions  for 
damages,  the  same  rule  does  not  obtain  in  regard  to  criminal  prose- 
cutions for  libel.  There  the  Commonwealth  has  its  rights,  and  is 
supposed  to  have  sustained  injury,  and  the  mere  illegality  of  the  vo- 
cation of  the  libelled  party,  will  not  of  itself  constitute  a  defence; 
though,  in  case  of  conviction,  this  fact  might  go  in  mitigation  of 
punishment. 

His  Honor  examined  the  authorities,  and  reasoned  upon  and  illus- 
trated these  positions  at  some  length. 

He  then  made  some  remarks  upon  the  great  value  of  the  liberty 
of  the  press,  in  sustaining  the  supremacy  of  the  laws  and  putting 
down  vice.  Men  love  darkness  rather  than  light.  They  evade  the 
penalties  of  the  law.  The  press  discovers  and  lays  bare  their  dark 
deeds.  Men  who  do  not  fear  the  law,  dread  the  press :  for  it  expo- 
ses their  crimes  to  the  eye  of  the  public,  so  that  good  men  shun 
them  and  hold  their  character  and  their  practices  in  just  abhorrence. 
The  voice  of  a  free  press  is  often  the  last  resort  of  an  outraged  pub- 
lic, to  rebuke  and  restrain  vice.  But,  while  Courts  and  Juries 
should  guard  its  liberty  with  a  jealous  eye,  they  should  never  give 
countenance  to  its  licentiousness. 

In  conclusion,  his  Honor  remarked  upon  the  subject  of  damages, 
and  instructed  the  Jury  that  if  they  found  a  verdict  for  the  plaintiff, 
to  give  him  such  damages  as  he  was  entitled  to  under  all  the  cir- 
cumstances of  this  case.  Otherwise,  to  acquit  the  defendants. 


After  consulting  together  about  three-fourths  of  an  hour,  the  Jury 
agreed  upon  a  general  verdict  of  NOT  GUILTY. 


The  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  excepted  to  several  of  the  rulings  of 
his  Honor  Judge  Hubbard,  and  it  is  understood  that  the  points  of 
law  will  be  carried  before  the  full  bench  for  determination. 


YB  07545 


